The Digital Rights Foundation is expanding the services of the Cyber Harassment Helpline. As of August 19, 2017, the helpline will be operational throughout the week, including on Saturday and Sunday. The helpline support team will be taking the calls from 9 AM to 5 PM. The expansion wouldn’t have been possible without the support of our friends at Digital Defenders Program. The helpline has also signed an MoU with Ahung, and also with  Lo Bono Law, which is specifically geared towards providing low cost, high quality legal services to clients unable to bear the high cost of legal representation in courts of Sindh.

The Cyber Harassment Helpline is the region’s first dedicated helpline for cases of online harassment and violence. It was established in December 2016 to help the victims and survivors of online harassment with their ordeal. The services of the helpline are confidential,gender-sensitive and completely free-of-cost. The Support Team comprises of the trained lawyers, digital security experts, and qualified psychologists who assist the callers according to their needs.

The helpline, as it is no secret, was started with limited resources and on a very urgent basis to extend support to the people who didn’t know who to turn to when they fall victim to any kind of abuse online. In all honesty, the team didn’t expect a lot of calls when the service was launched. But to our surprise, just in the first week of its launch, the team answered 10 genuine calls daily  on average. We were humbled by the response, but also deeply worried with the stories and experiences our callers shared with us. By the time the helpline completed its 6 months of operations, we had received over 700 calls, out of which 63% were from women while 37% callers were men.

The six month report of the Cyber Harassment Helpline also outlines the psychological impact that online violence leaves on the survivors of harassment. According to the report, 19% of the callers experienced insecurity, 17% went through depression, 16% suffered chronic stress, and 15% experienced disturbed sleep.

It was then when we realised that online harassment needs to be taken seriously on governmental  level as well, in the corridors of the parliament and public offices. The DRF is constantly pushing for policy reforms within cyber crime wings of Federal Investigation Agency, pushing the concerned official to address the complaints referred to the FIA  and take immediate action against the perpetrators of online harassment.

Moreover, a strong support system is extremely crucial when someone experiences harassment, be it online or offline. It’s important that the people around the victim refrain from victim blaming, and the least they should do is to believe them when they express their ordeal. If you or someone you know is going through an unpleasant situation online, please call us immediately on the toll-free number 0800-39393 everyday from 9 AM to 5 PM, 7 days a week, or email us at helpdesk@digitalrightsfoundation.pk. For more information on the helpline and its policies, click here.

Visit: YEAR IN REVIEW: PECA

The free flow of information created by the internet can be both a blessing and curse. Though we can enjoy unprecedented levels of access to information for purposes such as research, education, activism, corporate oversight and government accountability, there is a real trade-off for this increased knowledge about the world around us. Specifically, our individual privacy and the amount of personal information that is now freely available online for anyone who cares to do a simple search has changed dramatically thanks to the digital revolution.

For many of us, the loss of privacy is merely an annoyance, but for others, it can pose a true threat to safety. The anonymity of cyberspace can give stalkers practically limitless information about their victims. Also, the internet provides another communication channel for these cyberstalkers to harass and intimidate their targets.

Though no one can predict or prevent the behavior that instigates a stalker’s obsession, there are ways you can protect yourself and your online identity to make it harder for anyone to gather personal information about you. Here are some ways you can protect your identity online and keep yourself from becoming a cyberstalking statistic:

Know Your Rights

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), passed by the National Assembly and approved by the Senate in 2016, is a controversial bill that outlines many cybercrimes. It specifically includes cyberstalking and prohibits individuals from attempting to coerce or threaten others through online communications. The penalties are severe if the charges are proven to be correct and can include five years in prison and a fine of up to 10 million rupees.

Offenses can be reported to the authorities who can then trace the sender’s internet address for use in prosecution. Though stalking victims have the law on their side, many are too afraid or embarrassed to seek help from authorities, which makes cyberstalking a seriously under-reported crime around the globe. It’s important to know you have the upper-hand in these situations.

Speak Up

Like many other crimes that target women, cyber harassment tends to be severely under-reported. Some victims don’t think the authorities will take their concerns seriously while others are embarrassed and feel responsible for the behavior of the stalker. Many abusers count on this hesitancy and capitalize on it to further the harassment.

In 2016, DRF launched a Cyber Harassment Helpline to support victims of online abuse. The helpline is staffed by experts including an attorney, cybersecurity experts, and a psychologist, all of whom can help victims understand their rights and empower them to make informed choices about how they can move forward.

If you or someone you know is the victim of a cyberstalker, DRF’s confidential helpline is a great resource. Call the toll-free number: 0800-39393 Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m to speak to a staff member about your situation.

Protect Yourself

When it comes to cyberstalking, it can be very difficult to monitor all of the information available online about yourself. However, there are some preventative measures you can take to make it more difficult for someone to follow you online.

Proxy Software Service

Using a proxy software service turns your internet activity anonymous, making it much more difficult for anyone to track your browsing history or access your personal data online. Using a service such as this is especially important if you ever access the internet using a public or unsecured WiFi connection. Accessing the internet via any unsecured connection makes your information much more vulnerable to tracking and theft by a third party who is interested in following you.

Privacy Settings

If you use social media, it’s important to be aware of exactly how much information you’re sharing and with whom you’re sharing it. Check the privacy settings on your accounts regularly and be sure you know everyone who is getting updates about your page. You should also check your mobile phone privacy settings to ensure you aren’t sharing your geographic location through any apps or other services without realizing it. More closely restricting privacy settings is an easy way to ensure a cyberstalker is locked out of many avenues of information.

Google Alert

Set a Google Alert with your name to let you know if anyone else is posting information about you online. If someone is posting private information about you publicly, this service will alert you quickly so that you can get it removed as soon as possible. Staying aware of what information about yourself is public is key to reducing cyberstalking threats.

If you or someone you know is being stalked or threatened on- or offline, it’s important to remember that it’s not your fault. Stalking is the result of obsessive behavior, and you are in no way responsible for the actions of anyone stalking you.

This is a guest post by Sandra - a freelance writer. Her areas of expertise include cybersecurity, technology and women’s rights. She is a frequent contributor to The Right Side of Truth.

Picture someone walking into your house, recording everything you have and do, with every action, gesture, conversation you’ve made or taken part in being filed away. This person then makes a list of everything you own, what you use them for, how often, and where you keep them. When you sit down to watch television or read a book, this person records it, noting what you like to watch or read. Send a text message to a friend, chat with someone over Whatsapp, place an order over the telephone? Recorded. Imagine this person taking snapshots of baby photos, and jotting down the brand of ice-cream you like. Now imagine that the stranger holds onto that information, to use against you in the future, or to sell it on to advertising companies to make a profit, without your knowledge or consent.

Scary to imagine, isn’t it? We don’t have to imagine it, however, as this already happens. It happens every day of week of the year – it’s probably happening right now, in the time it takes to get to the end of the sentence.

Whether one is an ordinary citizen or high-flying person of influence, anyone that accesses the internet in Pakistan has had their privacy breached. From the minute that your device connects to a Wifi network, whether you are at home, at work, or at a restaurant, any information you share is no longer yours, nor does it remain private. The government, multinational corporations – they have recorded all the data that is sent and received by you and millions of other internet users across the nation and across the globe.

This is all possible thanks to the digital footprint left by anyone that uses an internet connection. Just as movements in the real world can be easily traced, your internet activity creates a history, a register of all the websites you visit, the information you input, and the links you may click on. This information, which may also be shared via internet-connected mobile apps or services, can include sensitive data such as your medical history, political and religious views, sexual orientation, interests and hobbies. All of this, however, is readily available to and easily accessible by the same corporations whose websites and applications we use frequently.

If you use Google to search for a pair of shoes, for example, the advertisements or website that may pop up could be related to a particular shoe brand or retailer. Google sells over 20 petabytes (1 petabyte = 1,000,000,000,000,000 bytes) of personal user data to advertising companies each day, making up the majority of its overall revenue stream.

Some might argue that no harm is being done here, and that it doesn’t matter if other people have access to the your online information – perhaps having advertisements directed at you makes personal shopping et al more convenient. It may be that the information is the sort that you intended to be publicly available, such as a blog post. What these do not take into account, is what could happen to information that may have been shared privately or in confidence. Access to this information could provide harmful to you as an individual and would be a clear violation of your right to privacy Imagine your visa being rejected because of something you said to a friend online, or losing out on a job on the basis of your social media history or a Facebook ‘Like’ being used against you in a court of law as ‘evidence’ that you committed blasphemy.

These are tangible harms that can arise because your private information no longer remained private. Even though there is a real and factual difference between what constitutes public data on the internet and what constitutes private data, however, there are no rights to privacy for Pakistani citizens and no safeguards to stop this data from falling into the wrong hands. That is where data protection laws come in.

Just as there are laws in every country that protect the privacy and dignity of an individual in their own home, there should be rules in place that clearly define and demarcate what digital online data is to remain private and confidential, and what constitutes public domain. Interestingly, Article 14 of Pakistan’s constitution - which guarantees a person’s right to dignity and privacy in his/her own home - is almost identical to the article that has been used by the Council of Europe to grant digital data rights . There is international precedent to support the idea that the “dignity of man and the privacy of home” extends to the digital realm and yet there has been no attempt on behalf of the legislature to recognize the protections that we as citizens are entitled to.

A data protection law regulates, defines, limits and controls the type of data that can be stored, analyzed and processed by both public and private entities and the purposes and durations for which this information may be used. It acts as a safeguard against the misuse and mishandling of private data and provides citizens with a mode of accountability. It is a check on the processors of personal data and empowers the individual. This is both legitimate and important in a world where most of our communication is non-physical and almost all of our important information is on or between servers that exist virtually.

In other words it defines what constitutes private and confidential information online and what forms part of the public sphere. If a person browses the internet using their personal computer or mobile phone, they should feel secure that the information they share will not be recorded or used without their consent. This can only be achieved, however, once a proper legal framework is set in place to allow for their data rights to be exercised.

Author: Mehboob Khan

The increasing popularity of social media and the unprecedented dependency on information technology is posing novel difficulties for Pakistan’s notoriously lethargic legal system. Furthermore, the interaction of special Anti-Terrorism legislation with modern instrumentalities of crime is testing the capacity of our judicial system to grapple with new age legal issues. The recent case of Taimore Raza, wherein an Anti-Terrorism Court sentenced him to death for committing Blasphemy under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, is a good example of such an interaction.

According to the facts narrated by the judge, Raza was booked for showing hateful material on his phone to the public at a bus station in Bahawlpur. After having been informed, the police arrested him at the bus station. The police made an inventory of the items that he had on him, which included his phone, a wallet (with Irani Riyal, the significance of which shall become apparent hereunder), and bus tickets.

It is said that the material on his phone, which included pictures, was blasphemous. This material was also sent to the Islamia University, Bahawalpur, which opined that the material was blasphemous as to the Holy Prophet as well. There after, Raza was booked under Sections 9 and 11 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and Sections 295-A and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code.

Right to Privacy

Some countries have had to delineate the extent of privacy rights that citizens have over their data. For example, the US Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have a right to privacy as to the data on their phones, and that it may not be looked into without a warrant. The external condition and characteristics of the device that contains the data does is not protected in the same manner, and may be examined pursuant to a valid arrest. This question is likely to come up before the Superior Judiciary in Pakistan soon.

This right to privacy is significant in Raza’s case because the Section 295-C charge was added to his case after the police scoured through his phone after his arrest, and without a warrant. The judgment also states that his Facebook account was logged into his phone, which is why the police was able to examine his Facebook activity. Again, this was done without a validly issued warrant.

It is to be seen whether the Superior Judiciary will extend the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy to data.

Trial for Blasphemy under Section 295-C in the Anti-Terrorism Court

The Anti-Terrorism Act creates certain new offences, and also allows the special courts established under it to try certain already existing offences which are scheduled to it. Furthermore, the Act allows the special courts to try any other offences that an accused may be charged with while it is seized with a trial pertaining to a scheduled offence. This is significant because the procedure to be followed in trials before the Anti-Terrorism courts is heavily skewed in favor of the prosecution. The Act allows for ex-parte prosecution, which is abnormal compared to the rights typically afforded to criminal defendants. The Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that evidence against the accused must be recorded in his presence. However, the Anti-Terrorism Act removes this requirement, to the detriment of the accused. It is also worth noting that various jurisdictions hold this right of the accused to be confronted with evidence against him/her to be a sacrosanct constitutional right that may not ordinarily be done away with.

Under the ATA, Section 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) is a scheduled offence and can, thus, be tried at an Anti-Terrorism Court. The maximum punishment under the provision is ten (10) years imprisonment and a fine. However, as mentioned above, the ATA also allows prosecution of other offences arising out of the same occurrence. In this situation, the other offence was Section 295-C (use of derogatory remark etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet), which carries a maximum sentence of death and a fine. The obvious problem presented here is that in the prosecution of an accused for a lesser crime without the mandatory provision of regular statutory rights, he/she may also be tried for an offence with a much higher sentence. The balance of the rights of the accused and the need for successful convictions must be thoroughly examined to arrive at a prudent compromise.

The Judgment

The opinion itself is predicated on some very worrying reasoning and judgment writing. Firstly, the judge has sentenced the Mr. Raza to death for having committed blasphemy against the Holy Prophet. However, he refused to share precisely what the content of the culpable expression was. Section 367 of the Cr.PC is a mandatory provision that requires the judge to explain the reasons for the judgment being rendered. This requires the judge to explain how every element of the crime has been met. A judge may not, as has happened in this case, merely state that he/she is satisfied in their mind that the offence has been committed without demonstrating how they have arrived at that conclusion. While it is understandable that judges may not want to reproduce blasphemous content, not doing so clouds the judicial process. This is a unique issue that lawmakers must deliberate upon to formulate policy.

The second issue pertains to some unwarranted extrapolations that the judge has made. According the judge, the recovery of a few Irani Riyals is evidence of links with sectarian outfits. This conclusion, by itself, is thoroughly unwarranted. A man of Shia faith possessing Irani Riyal may have several explanations other than the one the judge arrived at.

Ending Remarks

There is uncertainty. Pakistan has often lagged behind developed nations in matters of technology. It appears that it is also behind in matters of jurisprudence pertaining to technology related issues of law. The Constitution and laws of the country may be adequate to deal with new age issues, however, we will only be able to say that for sure after the Superior Judiciary grapples with several such issues and pronounces authoritative opinions on the matter. Till then, its best to err on the side of caution.

As far as the government is concerned, it is persevering with the policy of restraining controversial speech on social media. The Interior Minister warned of a possible complete social media ban if the population fails to self-regulate its speech and bring it within the prescribed limits. Continuing down this road, the Minister recently met with Facebook’s Vice President for Global Public Policy, Mr. Joel Kaplan in Islamabad and apprised him of his concerns and desires. It remains to be seen if Facebook will mold its policy to the satisfaction of Mr. Nisar. If it does, the government would move closer to successfully censoring the Internet as desired. As is popularly known, the Pakistan Telecom Authority has blocked scores of websites containing content that it deems blasphemous.

The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (“PECA”) was ostensibly legislated in order to combat the “growing threat of cybercrime.” The legislation provides various legal mechanisms and investigative powers by which government authorities can search and seize digital forensic evidence and information systems in order to penalize offenders. The object and reason of the bill is to “effectively prevent cybercrimes” and defend the national security of Pakistan, while also enabling secure systems for investment in IT and e-commerce.

The legislation notes that the exercise of these powers needs to be “proportionate with the civil liberty protections afforded to citizens under the Constitution.”  It claims that “The Bill also includes specific safeguards to balance against these intrusive and extensive procedural powers in order to protect the privacy of citizens and avoid abuse of the exercise of these powers.”

There is an inherent tension within any policy formulation which seeks to govern a medium of information storage, access and delivery against fundamental rights for privacy, expression and speech.

The legislation in question, both substantively and procedurally, fails to provide any safeguard for the newly enumerated powers of government.

With regards to internet access and data systems, states can be likened to librarians which engage in the conscious curation of knowledge and expressive materials. As ruled in United States v. American Library Association, “public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment.” Towards that end, libraries subscribe to the model of providing “[b]ooks and other... resources... for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library [*] serves...To fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to provide to their patrons. Although they seek to provide a wide array of information, their goal has never been to provide "universal coverage." (United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 2003).

Although the case dealt particularly with the filtering of internet content within state-funded public libraries, such a role is analogous to that of the paternalistic state model which is frequently advocated by Pakistan’s lawmakers and state agencies. The reasoning goes that the internet is a harmful, obscene and blasphemous space that must be cleansed before consumption for the Islamic sensibilities of the Pakistani people (Sindhu, 2017).

Notwithstanding the manipulative and political invocation of religion for the promotion of state ideologies, the internet does require regulation and surveillance for efficient government and policing against cybercrimes such as fraud, illegal trade, extortion etc. Therefore, the state has a vested and legitimate interest in seeking to control the internet. However, the debate is to what extent and to which ends?

The most important aspect of any statutory legislation is its language and terminology, which expands or restricts the scope of its controlling provisions. The PECA 2016 is worded ambiguously enough so that it is entirely up to the discretion of an authorized offer to investigate, seize, prosecute and penalize an enumerated offender.

For instance, Sections 2-8, technically speaking, make the simple act of connecting to the internet a potentially criminal activity, with the controlling element of culpability being “dishonest intention,” a discretion left entirely to the judge. “Dishonest intention” is defined as “intention to cause injury, wrongful gain or wrongful loss or harm to any person or to create hatred or incitement to violence.” Given the religious fervour and overzealousness of state functionaries to impose injury at the slightest provocation, even the simple act of browsing a potentially controversial page on Facebook or Twitter could constitute criminal activity under the law. A simple application of “Section 4 - Unauthorized copying or transmission of data,” for instance, would make sharing a controversial meme or even downloading the page for viewing (a technical necessity for accessing any content on the internet) as a potential offence. This would result in wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice.

In effect, then, any internet activity must have the proper authorization and appropriateness. Such provisions run counter to the democratizing function of the web, meant to facilitate discourse and debate, by making it a library where content can only be consumed if the patron has the requisite permission from the proper authority, and if the content itself is deemed appropriate for viewing ab initio.

This is precisely the danger posed by the PECA, as it provides the government with both a warrant and an authority to freely designate and criminalize any political and ideological dissidents and minorities which do not align with the ideological frontiers of the state. While these constitutional guarantees have never been absolute nor unrestricted, the PECA only encourages the muzzling of these freedoms which were rarely respected by the state.

With the PECA, however, the state has an additional weapon in its arsenal to prosecute unwanted elements within society on the pretext of legitimate government regulation. While certain sections of the Act are beyond reproach and necessary for a peaceful and healthy society (such as the prevention of cyber fraud and dissemination of child pornography), the highlighted sections and their languages need to be reviewed by the apex court for being void for vagueness. Or else, if applied as it is, the PECA could become the very means by which democracy is stifled, rather than facilitated. Instead of providing a repository of knowledge, Pakistan could transform the internet into a propaganda tool where only state-ratified ideas are fit for consumption, and the rest discarded, along with their authors.

Author: Ashtar Haideri
Ashtar is an intern at DRF. He is a senior law student at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, and is interested in law, philosophy, and technology.