Digital Rights Foundation Research and Policy Department 

21-5-2024

In November 2023, following the events of October 7th there was a surge in posts online containing the phrase “From the River to the Sea” - a phrase used by people across the world to show their support for Palestine. The complete slogan, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free” is a reference to the land across the historical state of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The slogan has been used since the 1960s by Palestinian nationalist and resistance groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas. Over time the phrase has become increasingly popular among Palestinians, and Palestinian diaspora around the world as it speaks to their personal ties to the land. Many identify themselves strongly with the village or town they or their ancestors come from, stretching across the land, from Jericho and Safed near the Jordan River, to Jaffa and Haifa on the shores of the Mediterranean sea. 

As the phrase is used globally by different actors, the context and intent varies depending on who is using it. Despite that, the chant is mostly used to support and empower the struggle of all Palestinians, regardless of religion, striving for a free and sovereign homeland. However, there have been instances where variations of the phrase have been used to support the movement for a Greater Israel. For example, the founding charter of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party states: “Between the sea and the Jordan River there will only be Israeli sovereignty”. In 1977, their platform called for Israeli sovereignty over the land between Jordan and the Mediterranean sea, openly demanding complete annexation of the West Bank. 

The chant can be equated to the commonly supported ideology for a ‘Greater Israel’ - an Israeli Jewish state that extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. If we consider Palestinian usage of the chant for liberation as a call for the expulsion of Jews from the region, then in all fairness, the same should hold true for a call for a Greater Israel. It is no secret that the current Israeli government and those that came before have supported the complete annihilation and expulsion of Palestinians from the land. Supporters of the zionist ideology perceive the chant as a violent call because it threatens their vision of a solely Jewish state. The liberation of Palestine means that Israel will have to treat Palestinian Arabs and Israelis as equal citizens, adding millions of Palestinian Arabs to their citizenship rolls - a decision that goes against their aim of establishing a Greater Israel, diminishing the “Jewishness” of the state.

  In the past claims have been made that the slogan is antisemitic, however in truth the slogan and its use reflect a long history of attempts to silence Palestinian voices and those speaking in solidarity. Palestinian-American writer Yousef Munayyer argues that those who perceive “From the River to the Sea” to have genocidal connotations or any desire for the destruction of Israel, were simply reflective of their own Islamophobia. He argues that the phrase was instead merely used to express people's desire for a state where “Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating others.” Some Palestinians say that the slogan refers to a single state where Palestinians and Israelis can live together, and not as a call to remove anyone from the region. According to Rama Al Malah, an organizer with the Palestinian Youth Movement, the chant in no way calls for the killing of Jewish people but is a way for them to say that they want liberation from 75 years of occupation, and to advocate for the return of refugees who have been forced out of their land from 1948 till now. 

Now that the intended use of the phrase through online and offline platforms is established, it is important to highlight how Meta’s policies and content moderation practices have been heavily censoring content relating to Palestine since October 7th, 2023. Users across the globe have reported that the content they share that is pro-Palestine is being ‘shadow-banned’, limiting their reach and engagement on the platforms. Users have also reported the removal of pro-Palestine content from the platform after being flagged for ‘violating community guidelines’.When content regarding conflict areas is removed by Meta from its platforms, the risk of erasure of crucial evidence to be used in international criminal courts for prosecuting perpetrators increases. In addition to silencing voices that advocate for Palestinian rights, the deletion of the phrase “From the River to the Sea” among other pro-Palestine content creates gaps in potential digital evidence on human rights violations. As per Leiden guidelines, digitally derived evidence including photographs, social media content and videos is being increasingly used as documented evidence in international criminal prosecutions. The UN Fact-Finding mission using Facebook posts as evidence in the case of brutalities against Myanmar’s Rohingya population is one such example that signifies the crucial role played by social media platforms for the preservation of records. Similarly, Meta’s removal of content related to the Palestine-Israel conflict, in any capacity, creates a dent in the repository that has the potential to serve as crucial evidence for legal decision-making against violations within conflict zones.   

According to a report by Human Rights Watch from October to November 2023, there have been 1050 takedowns on Instagram and Facebook relating to Pro Palestinian content. Of the 1050 takedowns, written primarily in the English language from over 60 countries, 1049 cases contained peaceful content in solidarity with Palestinians. Since the October 7 conflict, there has been a surge in hateful content against Palestinians on social media platforms. 7amleh’s AI-powered language model has been monitoring the spread of hate speech in Hebrew against Palestinians and pro-Palestine users on these platforms. Since October the model has classified 6,026,492 hateful and violent cases on platforms. The distribution of violence according to the tool has been the highest on X (79.7%) followed by Meta platforms (19.1%). Additionally, it is difficult to overlook Meta’s biased approach towards pro-Palestinian content on the platform when in October 2023 Meta started inserting the word ‘terrorist’ into profile bios of Palestinian users on Instagram; later issuing an apology stating that the platform was experiencing a bug in auto-translation on Instagram. Previously, Meta’s track record in the May 2021 crisis between Israel and Palestine showed a similar pattern when Palestinian voices were censored and shadow-banned on the platform, as was later confirmed by the Sustainable Business Network and Consultancy (BSR) report. The continuous removal of pro-Palestine content on the platform indicates that Meta has repeatedly censored the voices of users on its platform even before the events of October 9. Post-October 9, the censorship has been further aggravated by big tech platforms. 

Meta’s handling of Palestinian content, particularly the removal of pages such as Eye of Palestine and the suspension of Palestinian journalist Motaz Azaiza’s account, raises serious concerns about the platform’s commitment to human rights and freedom of speech on the platform. Despite Meta’s newsworthy policy, which protects journalistic content, these accounts have faced undue restrictions and reach limitations. This biased enforcement is in stark contrast with Meta’s approach during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where the platform displayed clear bias by promoting content favoring and showing solidarity with Ukraine. This discrepancy underscores an inconsistency in Meta’s content moderation practices, undermining principles of freedom of expression, freedom of association, and equality and non-discrimination. Although Meta has since issued an apology for its unfair treatment of Palestinian solidarity voices, the platform persists in limiting content that supports Palestine, further perpetuating digital apartheid and the use of social media algorithms that disproportionately impact marginalized voices. This ongoing issue highlights a significant gap between Meta’s stated policies and its actions, calling into question its commitment to upholding human rights responsibilities.

In its recent policy changes, Meta has introduced new default limits on political content, weakening free expression online by disproportionately affecting political content from marginalized groups. The time and context of this particular policy raise questions about the potentially biased approach of the platform in controlling narratives. This not only undermines democratic values of free speech and association but also exacerbates existing inequalities, particularly for voices supporting the Palestinian plight. The biased application of Meta’s policies reflects a broader trend of digital discrimination, where algorithmic decisions and content moderation policies reinforce existing power imbalances and suppress dissenting voices. Meta’s inconsistent and biased handling of Palestinian content, coupled with its preferential treatment of other geopolitical issues, not only raises grave concerns around adherence to global human rights principles but also potentially undermines systematic freedom of expression, freedom of association, and non-discrimination. Tech platforms need to create more transparent and equitable content moderation policies that are sensitive to contextual nuances.

Meta’s response to the phrase “From the river to the sea” on its platform revolves around several key human rights principles. Facebook, as a platform with 3.03 billion monthly active users, has the responsibility to protect the fundamental human rights of its user base. This includes allowing individuals to express political opinions, advocate for political changes, express solidarity with a cause and ensure equality and non-discrimination. The cases highlight contexts where the aim of the phrase “From the river to the sea” is to advocate peacefully for Palestinian civil rights without promoting violence or hatred towards people under protected characteristics. Upon reviewing the content mentioning the phrase on Meta platforms, it was found that a large majority of it only mentions and sympathizes with Palestinians with no discussion being anti-semitic or anti-Israel. The question that arises is in a case where the world has seen the extent of atrocities that Palestinians have been subjected to, are expressing personal opinions around the current crisis considered promoting terrorism on platforms? Many Palestinian activists have expressed that the complete phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” does not insult or violate the sovereignty of the state of Israel, the Jewish community, or Meta’s content moderation policies. Through a more subjective perspective where the phrase is used critically against state institutions, Meta does not categorize the use of the phrase as hate speech, particularly when the phrase is against state institutions rather than any specific recognized individuals. In all three cases, the phrase has been provided more context with additional text, for example “#DefundIsrael”, “Zionist State of Israel”, and “Zionist Israeli occupiers”, highlighting the cases as an association with a political cause rather than to support any dangerous organizations (as categorized by Meta and/or the United States Government). Although the cause is controversial in the current global political landscape, the phrase and its use in these cases do not violate Meta’s community guidelines on “Hate speech”. The first case where the user claimed the phrase “violates Meta’s policies prohibiting content that promotes violence or supports terrorism” refers to Meta’s rules on “Violence and incitement”, “Dangerous Organizations” and Individuals. The phrase “From the river to the sea” is used to show solidarity with Palestinians in general, rather than an affiliation with any political or resistance group. None of the cases presented by the Oversight Board insinuate or show affiliation and alliance, or promote dangerous organizations. Moreover, Meta’s categorization of dangerous organizations needs further transparency and context. The issue of contextual categorization of keywords and associations has been a long-standing debate, especially with Meta’s content moderation policies. For a platform that deems its policies global and standardized for every country, specifically using “United States designated terrorist organizations” contradicts their global policies agenda. These policies need more robust and inclusive parameters to be globally inclusive throughout different regions. Moreover, the categorizations of “Dangerous organizations” should be transparently communicated with Meta’s trusted partners to make them aware of the kind of content that should be escalated to Meta.

These cases are a testament to addressing the contextual application of Meta’s community standards. Ideally, there should be no room for specific targeting of any religious groups thus anti-semitic content should be taken down right away, however in cases where the content is associated with a peaceful socio-political movement, the content should be left up as it does not go against any of Meta’s content moderation guidelines. Hence, the three cases should not be removed from the platform as long as they have been posted in solidarity with a political cause and are categorized as freedom of speech and freedom of association. 

The use of the phrase has also been widely scrutinized at the state and educational institutions level. The phrase was labeled antisemitic by the US House of Representatives in a resolution that was passed with a 377 majority against 44 who voted against it in January 2024. US Representative Rashida Tlaib was censured by the House of Representatives through a resolution as a consequence of her using the phrase on social media. Several House Republicans and Democrats came together to condemn the pro-Palestine statements of the only Palestinian-origin representative. According to them, the phrase’s genocidal nature encourages the eradication of the state of Israel. It is important to note that the resolution was passed and supported by the majority of House Representatives despite Tlaib clarifying on the House floor that her criticism is targeted at the Israeli government, not the people. In the UK, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemned the slogan and called the people who use it either gravely misinformed or supportive of the threat that the slogan signifies towards Israel’s existence. Last year, Pro Palestine rallies across the UK were condemned by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman. She was of the opinion that the rallies were “hate marches” against Jewish people and the state of Israel, encouraging the police to use brute force with zero tolerance. Braverman has repeatedly expressed her contention with the rallies and the phrase asking why it has been justified under claims of religious struggle. She has also proposed to alter the Terrorism Act 2000 as in its current state, evidence of incitement and encouragement of terrorism is required to charge the protestors, calling for laws to tackle “mass extremism” on the UK streets. Individuals holding office encouraging the police to take strong action against protestors without distinguishing between peaceful and non-peaceful elements is deeply concerning as it paves the way for influencing and forming a collective narrative that eventually infiltrates the general public. The encouragement of violence against the protestors in itself comes off as a threat to people’s right to protest and freedom of expression; just as Rashida Tlaib’s clarification on her stance being against the Israeli government and not the people was ignored, condemning her pro-Palestine stance.

The pro-Palestine student protests taking place across university campuses have been labeled anti-semitic resulting in several students being arrested by the police. Upon being asked about the phrase being used, the Columbia University President pointed out that although she feels that the phrase is antisemitic, there are people who do not hold the same opinion. Since April 18, the arrests have taken place at 40 different US campuses resulting in more than 2100 students being arrested. The arrests and the administration’s sympathetic stance towards anti-protestors have widely challenged freedom of speech and expression where students are being penalized for voicing out their opinion and publicly protesting against a genocide. Such practices are discriminatory and promote a greater divide within the community. 

Censoring public opinions on platforms is not only an undemocratic practice but also sets a questionable global precedent where silencing the masses becomes an acceptable norm. Although drawing a clear binary between free speech and hate speech is important, institutions and government bodies need to demarcate through careful consideration. As mentioned earlier, the particular phrase under scrutiny is used during peaceful pro-Palestine protests to showcase solidarity with Palestinians and their struggles. It is more to sympathize with them than it is to acts of terror. As the binary is defined, it is important to remember that calling out states participating in genocide cannot and should not be categorized as hate speech let alone students being penalized for the same. Several universities including New York University and Columbia University have barred graduating students from attending their graduation ceremonies as a consequence of their participation in the protests. This has led the protesting students to create their own events under the name of “The People’s Graduation” to provide support to the barred students by celebrating their achievements together. In addition, faculty members have also come forward to protest and in support of the protesting students, the same can however not be said about university administrations. 

Beyond the right to protest, students and other migrants relocate to countries like the US and the UK to improve their quality of life which includes their right to stand up for and against different causes that resonate with their identities as an ethnic, religious, or social community. When influential countries take a draconian position that advocates for the suppression of free speech, in addition to alienating the victims, they invalidate the individual right to democratic expression and legitimize all forms of oppression citizens and marginalized groups face in authoritarian states. 

While the intended use of the phrase at large is to advocate for the freedom of Palestinians, some perceive it as a threat to a state. By censoring pro-Palestine content, big tech platforms play a role in the erasure of digital evidence against human rights atrocities in addition to curbing free speech online. At the state and educational institutions level, the opposition to the phrase emphasizes the increased suppression of marginalized communities and their voices. To ensure equitable justice and access to information on online platforms through content regulation, it is important to not engage in disproportionate assessment of certain cases. To maintain their global status, platforms need to ensure that the criteria to flag specific content should be gauged not in line with regulations within specific countries, for instance, the US or the UK as discussed above, but per global majority countries. 

December 15, 2023

ISLAMABAD: Digital Rights Foundation (DRF) held a conference titled, ‘Countering Digital Threats and Building Resilience of Communities’ on Friday, 15th December 2023 in Islamabad. DRF’s conference addressed the lack of discourse relating to online freedoms in the country particularly with the rise of hate speech and disinformation against vulnerable and at-risk communities in Pakistan. The conference brought together experts from across the country with two panels that highlighted DRF’s engagements and redressal mechanisms available in the country for at-risk communities in Pakistan.

The event started off with welcome remarks by Seerat Khan Programs Lead at DRF in which she highlighted the particular vulnerabilities that religious minorities face in the country, especially with respect to rising hate speech and disinformation. Nighat Dad, Executive Director at Digital Rights Foundation also noted that “With the upcoming elections we see how harmful content pertaining to religious minorities in the country is increasing, particularly (the elements of) disinformation and hate speech. The rise in hate speech and disinformation will be even more rapid with the use of AI and generative AI which is quite concerning. The Election Commission and government institutions need to address this and include hate speech in the code of conduct for political parties that the Commission is developing. Social media platforms also need to do more to address how hate speech and disinformation spread and impact they have on at-risk communities in countries like Pakistan.”

In 2021, DRF conducted a research on "Religious Minorities in Online Spaces (2021)," addressing communities' vulnerabilities to attacks, disinformation campaigns, harassment, and hate speech. The research mapped the experiences of religious minorities in online spaces and through surveys and interviews, we found a majority of respondents for the aforementioned research experienced online negativity, including backlash or threats on the basis of religious affiliation and/or a combination of factors.

The first panel of the conference, ‘Navigating Digital Boundaries: Combating Online Hate Speech and Disinformation’ was a conversation about the challenges posed by online hate speech and disinformation targeting at-risk communities. The panel was moderated by Senior Program Manager Zainab Durrani and included NCHR Secretary Mr. Kamran Rajar, Dr. Shoaib Suddle, One Man Commission for Minorities, Academic Dr. Ayra Patras, Journalist Sajjad Azhar and Director of Bolo Bhi, Usama Khilji. The panelists shed light on how online hate speech and disinformation manifest online and how to combat these as a community together.

Dr. Ayra Patras said,”When religious minority communities are ostracized in real life then you see the replication of this behavior online as well. We see more hate speech and there are no recompense mechanisms in place that actually work.” She added,”The social discrimination faced by these communities germinates into social exclusion and the consequences are far-reaching and become entrenched in real life.”

The second panel of the event was on ‘Bridging the Digital Divide: Ensuring Equal Access for All’ which was moderated by Programs Lead Seerat Khan. The panel was joined by NCHR Member Minorities Manzoor Masih, Former Senator Farahtullah Baber, Community Leader and Activist Sunil Gulzar Khan and Cyber Harassment Helpline Manager Hyra Basit. The panel addressed mechanisms needed to ensure safe spaces for at-risk communities, particularly in light of the upcoming elections and the need for community building and resilience.

Senator Farhatullah Babar said,”The discussion around digital divide is very timely in light of  the upcoming elections. In Pakistan, media has played a great role in elections and online disinformation is a very real issue.” He added,”It is very important to considers all actors complicit in the online disinformation campaign and more than most, its the state is complicit”. He advocated for the Election Commission of Pakistan to develop a code of conduct for media house that is focused on combating disinformation on social media.

Digital Rights Foundation is a registered research-based NGO in Pakistan. Founded in 2012, DRF focuses on ICTs to support human rights, inclusiveness, democratic processes, and digital governance. DRF works on issues of online free speech, privacy, data protection and online violence against women.
For more information log on: www.digitalrightsfoundation.pk

Facebook
Twitter/X
Instagram
Tiktok
#DigitalResilienceConference

Contact

Nighat Dad 
[email protected]

Seerat Khan
[email protected]

Anam Baloch
[email protected]

Faizan Ul Haq is currently a Senior at LUMS majoring in History. His interests include tech, philosophy, and social justice

A non-exhaustive database of mobile phone applications developed by the Pakistani government has been compiled by Faizan and can be accessed here.

It has been widely noted that Pakistan’s potential for IT development has grown vastly in the last decade or so. According to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s Annual Report for 2019-2020, in the period from 2016 to 2020, Mobile phone data usage in Pakistan has increased from 614 petabytes to 4,498 – an increase of over 700% in just half a decade. In the same time period, the distribution of broadband services has doubled. While numerous reasons can be speculated for leading this change (from the availability of cheaper smartphones from Chinese providers like Q-Mobile and Huawei, to the increasing importance of IT in business development, and the proliferation of mobile internet), it is obvious either way that the digital world in Pakistan now presents a new avenue that can be harnessed for better governance and delivering services.

It makes sense, then, that in late 2019, Prime Minister Imran Khan inaugurated the “Digital Pakistan” initiative. In its policy objectives, what stands out is the emphasis towards using digital applications (henceforth referred to as apps) for “e-governance” and in “key socio-economic sectors”. While there have been a few apps released previously to help with the aforementioned, the current government is seems intent on maximizing this newfound potential.

Over a 100 different apps (as of the summer 2021) have been released on the Google Playstore for Android phones and the Apple store for iOS device by both the government, at the provincial, federal and, at times, the district level. Primarily developed by different provincial IT boards, they cover a wide range of functions including education, the regulation of pre-existing government bodies, agriculture, and online ticketing and booking. Some apps are meant only for citizens of a particular locale (such as the City Islamabad app), while others are targeted to people of a specific profession (the Lahore and Sindh High Court apps are targeted towards the legal community). A few apps have also been released to help deal with health and safety emergencies, such as the Baytee app meant to increase women’s safety and a number of apps aimed at helping track and register COVID cases in Pakistan.

However, just publishing apps does not immediately mean that those apps have helped fix the underlying issues, or that they have been effective in their stated objectives. Quite a few of these apps have dubious efficacy, and some appear to not work at all. There are a few clear trends as to which apps have worked and which have not.

A number of apps profess a wide range of features. The “City Islamabad” app promises a lot. With the goal of “bridge(ing) the gap between citizens and government” by removing the need to go to government offices to access public services and departments, the app is supposed to provide quick access to numerous forms and payment services that would otherwise would have only been available therein. In practice, the Playstore review page is full of complaints that not all of the forms actually work. People have pointed out that tokens generated aren’t always registered by relevant financial departments. Certain forms load indefinitely – either they have not been programmed in properly, or the forms just are not available on the app. At the same time though, certain key features of the app still work and function effectively. The part of the app that provides information on Islamabad’s major landmarks and public facilities loads instantly and provides accurate information, while a portion of the userbase reports successful payment of tax related tokens and response upon submitting complaints. It appears that while a wide number of features have been programmed in, not all of them are perfectly useable.

A similar issue exists with what is arguably the government’s flagship application, the Pakistan Citizen Portal. Most of the reviews posted in September and August 2021 are entirely negative and allude largely to the same issue: a large number of the complaints registered on the app do not actually appear to lead to anything concrete and are instead marked “resolved” without any appropriate action being taken. While this is likely not representative of all users who have used the app, it does imply a degree of miscoordination between the app’s complaint registration mechanism and the departments that are meant to cater to it. If it’s true that complaints being marked as resolved does not actually mean any action has been taken, the widely quoted  statistics on the application’s website need to be taken with a grain of salt, it’s unlikely that each of the 3.1 million . It also speaks to the limitations inherent in e-governance and service delivery through apps – the issues that are already present in government bodies are likely to be reproduced through the functioning of the app. For example, if government bodies continue to treat cases of harassment lightly because of misogynistic attitudes, then the solution lies in a structural reform of said government bodies instead of opening more digital portals to file complaints through.

On the contrary, apps that are targeted towards a specific group of people appear to have had more success. There are two broad types of apps like this: some that have been created solely for the use of people in certain government departments, and others for everyone who works in a particular profession. Apps in the former category include the “Price Magistrate” app – a complaint management app meant specifically for district magistrates. This app has seen less use compared to other apps on this list, and its review section is full of users confused at the lack of a registration option. Of the few reviews that do appear to be from its intended user base, it seems that the app functions well.

An app’s functionality however is not just defined by how well certain features work. Overtime, as more bugs are reported, new devices are released and as operating systems go through several iterations, the publisher needs to provide constant support through updates to ensure their functionality. This is especially important in Pakistan, where Android users are likely to be using a very diverse set of devices given the numerous smartphone companies that exist. Additionally, smartphones in different price ranges have specific limitations – differences in screen resolution, RAM, processing power, and networking features mean that developers need to ensure that their apps can work despite these limitations. If this diversity isn’t catered for, sections of the Pakistani population that can only afford cheap smartphones with weaker specifications are likely to be left out. This means that the demographic which is least likely to be digitally literate will now also face bugs and compatibility issues that make it harder for them to use these applications. Updates are also important to address any security issues on the app, most application updates are issued to fix security bugs that are discovered later on and unanticipated backdoors.

The most prolific publisher of Government apps thus far has been the Punjab IT Board (compared to the other regional boards and other publishers, who barely have half as many apps as the Punjab board between them). On their Android publisher page alone, they have over 70 apps published. Yet, their support for these apps has been sporadic. More than half of these have not been updated even once in 2021. While at best, this might lead to most of these apps functioning albeit with bugs, quite a few of them have been rendered completely unusable as a result. A large number of users report that quite a few of these apps no longer have a working system for logging in users owing to an issue in generating and processing an OTP key. Other apps have been rendered completely unusable – the Agri-Smart app has been rendered completely unusable for certain Android users since their devices’ IMEI codes cannot be accessed. These issues have remained unaddressed for months on end.

It is unclear what the status of these apps is – if such glaring issues exist, has support for them been dropped completely? This seems to be the case, because other apps have had the publisher release frequent updates and engage with reviews that have pointed out issues. The fact that these apps remain available for download despite issues with their usability and a lack of developer support is troubling and speaks to a pattern where apps are launched without the necessary infrastructure to conduct follow-ups. This has caused a fair amount of confusion on app stores, as people continue to download said apps and leave negative reviews because of the clear lack of functionality.

If this is demonstrative of a communication gap between app developers and the intended user base, it is not the end of it. Certain apps certainly seem like they are designed to be used by a large user base, but evidently have not been used as such. The Click ECP app meant to facilitate voters during each election cycle and the Covid-19 Tracker app for Lahore both remain with only over a 1000+ downloads on the Playstore, when it is intuitive that their usage numbers should be far in the thousands. The “Equal Access App” meant to help disabled individuals also remains unused as its user base still is unengaged. At best, this is likely to result in certain apps being unused by their target demographic. At worst though, this can open the door to privacy violations.

Upon first use, a lot of apps require permission to access certain information and features of a phone. While this can vary from app to app, the general rule of thumb is that apps tend to only ask for those permissions that are core to an app’s functionality. Instagram, for example, will only ask for permission to use your camera when you open the in-app camera for the first time. However, even this can run awry – the Facebook app has long been under suspicion for secretly recording conversations for advertisement purposes. A number of apps supported by the Pakistan government, however, ask for a lot of permissions right at first launch. The Pehchaan app (currently unavailable on the Playstore as of September 2021) immediately requests permission to access a user’s location on launch. The “Forest Management Information System” (FMIS) app requests not only access to location services, but also to use the phone’s camera, to “modify and delete contents” of media files saved on device or USB storage, and of Wi-Fi connections. Why the app requires any of this is puzzling, especially since there is no use for any of these features immediately after an app has been launched. This runs afoul of the Principle of Data Minimization – the idea that data collectors should only request and use data that is needed for a specific purpose. Ideally, that purpose should be communicated clearly and a privacy policy should be attached in any scenario where private data is needed. Given that there is little communication from the developers of why these permissions are needed in the first place, it’s extremely troubling that many people in Pakistan could agree to these permissions just to launch an app without realizing the extent to which their privacy is invaded. While Google Play store does include a requirement that each app have a privacy policy attached, the Punjab IT Board’s Privacy Policy seems inadequate. The fact that it’s a generic policy means that it does not cater to the way each individual app may request, use, and store user data. By contrast, the City Islamabad App’s privacy policy and the Pakistan Citizens Portal’s privacy policy at least both specify the kind of data that may be collected. The Punjab IT Board’s privacy policy might already be violated by the FMIS collecting the “the minimum amount of information” required by the app. It is clear that the Punjab IT Board’s privacy policy – under which most of the apps released so far fall under – can be comprehensive and applied more rigorously.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of the Digital Pakistan initiative is worth questioning. Despite the massive growth in Pakistan’s access to these digital technologies and the potential therein, the system put in place to actualize it deserves further scrutiny. The reception of apps published by the government needs to move beyond a tokenistic celebration of each app’s release, to an evaluation of their actual benefit and long-term functioning.

The Digital Rights Foundation is excited by the resolution recently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the 16th of December, 2020, which reemphasizes the UN’s commitment to highlight the importance of the right to privacy.

The Resolution (75/176) adopted during the 75th session of the Assembly, while noting the Special Rapporteur reports of the Human Rights council on the subjects of right to privacy, freedom of expression and association as well as the UN Secretary General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and a myriad of other factors. The resolution:

1. Affirms the right to privacy as set out in Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 17 of ICCPR.
2. Recognizes the paramount importance of the Internet as a tool to connect people and also aid in achieving Sustainable Development Goals.
3. Affirms that the right to privacy must be translated into online spaces as well as offline.
4. Asks the States to employ principles of legality, necessity and proportionality in any curtailment or limitation of citizens’ right to privacy.
5. Encourages States to promote an environment of open and secure technology, based on respect for international law.
6. Acknowledges impact of artificial intelligence on right to privacy and asks for such risks to be minimized and safe and high quality data infrastructures to be built with human oversight.

The document also involves a call addressed specifically to States, especially those signatory to the UDHR and ICCPR and also to business enterprises involved in the storage and processing of data that we will unpack in further posts.

We, as an organization invested in creating a safer internet for women and children and all people, welcome this Resolution and see it for the important step that it is towards achieving a breathable and secure digital age for all netizens.

PUBLIC STATEMENT BY CITIZENS AND STAKEHOLDERS

On government attempts to curtail freedom of expression, right to information and digital rights; and appropriation of internet and cyberspace

Citizens groups reject PEMRA’s draconian proposed draft regulations on Web TV and other allied attempts to undermine digital rights and freedom of expression 

Islamabad – January 28, 2020

We the public, citizens of Pakistan, the media sector and its practitioners, digital rights advocates, human rights groups, legal fraternity and the broader civil society in general, are alarmed and angry at recent government attempts clearly aimed at curtailing our fundamental rights to free speech and access to information through blatant attempts to restrict our digital rights and hijacking of internet and cyberspace to curb open discourse and online socio-economic freedoms and pluralisms, as well as distorting and limiting the media market.

In particular, the following initiatives, proposals and measures at the start of 2020, and preceding it, taken by the government and the state, among other things, as made public by government authorities, reported by the media and/or unofficial information through reliable sources, are alarming:

• A draft proposal uploaded on its website by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) in January titled “Consultation on Regulating the Web TV & Over The Top TV (OTT) Content Services”
• Parallel/alternative draft, regulations not made public but reportedly possessed and distributed to selected authorities by PEMRA and presented before the federal cabinet that reportedly include even more stringent provisions than the ‘public’ version of the draft.
• A draft proposal by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) not formally circulated among the public but shared with parliamentary committees, aiming to establish so-called guidelines to “prevent harm to persons” on the internet but apparently aimed at restricting online freedom of expression and right to information.

A public consultation co-organized by BoloBhi, Digital Rights Foundation (DRF), Freedom Network (FN), Institute for Research, Advocacy and Development (IRADA) and Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ)  – all independent civil society Pakistani organizations championing the rights of journalists, civil liberties and digital rights of all citizens – and attended by dozens of journalists and media practitioners, digital rights activists, IT industry representatives, internet service providers, human rights groups, women’s rights advocates, lawyers, social media practitioners, and media rights groups, considered in detail all the recent announced and unannounced government measures and official and unofficial drafts.

All the above proposed measures, policies, drafts and proposals were rejected outright with consensus by the participants of the open consultation. The stakeholders and participants agreed that there is no need for the proposed drafts and proposals at all and, therefore, no need to respond to the individual clauses of both the declared and undeclared drafts from PEMRA, PTA and other sources, as they are redundant. Proposing amendments to these drafts would amount to  lending legitimacy to their unfair and non-representative, and often malicious, intent and content.

The stakeholders rejected the drafts in their totality as attempts at expanding the PEMRA footprint slyly by usurping and self-according to itself the mandate to regulate the internet with the thinly disguised aim to regulate online content. PEMRA’s legal mandate is to regulate the broadcast industry, not even regulate broadcast content, let alone online content,  while any attempts to self-expand its mandate to regulate the internet are dangerous by implication, and downright illegal, which will end up undermining Pakistan’s digital future.

REJECTION RATIONALE

The participants agreed and declared the following:

1. The environment for free speech for the citizens and the media is already heavily curtailed in Pakistan as part of an ongoing process of suppressing civil liberties and engendering a climate of censorship. These newly proposed regulations and measures, through publicized and unpublicized versions of drafts, can and will be used to censor online content and curb freedom of expression and right to information of media practitioners and citizens.
2. These anti-freedom of expression, anti-right to information measures and drafts cannot and should not be instituted through ‘regulations’ by bypassing legislative processes or without direct public-parliament consultations, or in violation of Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution. Furthermore, the  proposed regulations are beyond the statutory mandate of PEMRA  and therefore must not be adopted through regulations or notifications alone. This is obvious in the much higher license fee for news and current affairs Web TV channels as compared to other entertainment Web TV platforms in the proposed regulation. The drafts will also disproportionately impact independent content creators due to the proposed onerous licensing requirements.
3. The official and unofficial drafts, including those from PEMRA, are thinly disguised as draconian attempts to discourage new media journalism, including YouTube / website channels being run by Pakistani journalists who have been forced out from mainstream media over the past two years by the authorities to curtail their professional and/or entrepreneurial work, or dozens of entrepreneurial and non-legacy current affairs news and current affairs websites that are filling the gaps in information from legacy media and providing useful local community information. No one should be charged a fee for operating information services online through independent websites
4. The proposals and the official and unofficial drafts seem to be attempts to indirectly materialize the otherwise rejected idea of Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA) – the widely rejected proposal floated by the PTI government in 2019 to serve as a single controlling authority for print, broadcast and online media. This will also amount to overstretching of PEMRA’s jurisdiction beyond its statutory mandate and encroach on the mandate of other regulators.This will also amount to overstretching of PEMRA’s jurisdiction beyond its statutory mandate and encroach on the mandate of other regulators
   
5. Through these regulations, PEMRA seems to be proposing to assume/acquire Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA)-type powers for itself, which have already proved controversial (and which themselves require amendments for overreaching mandate in violation of constitutional articles) and a thinly disguised framework to hinder freedom of expression online, as the cases under it against several journalists and citizens prove, and other digital rights.

DIRE CONSEQUENCES FOR PAKISTAN

The participants warned the citizens, the netizens, media, information practitioners, the government, the opposition, legislatures, political parties, civil society, rights groups, media regulators of the following consequences if the proposed new measures, proposals and drafts are approved:

Regression of a digital economic future for Pakistan: Net neutrality and easier and cheaper access to the internet is central for a robust digital future of Pakistan. The newly proposed declared and undeclared measures will become a barrier for a broad range of players in not just the information, telecom and internet access business domains but for digital entrepreneurship and start-up ecosystems as well as contribute to a widening gap between the digital and non-digital natives.

Decreased freedom of expression, increased censorship and diminished digital rights:

Pakistan is already poorly ranked on all key annual global indexes of freedom of expression and digital rights, including those of Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF), Committee to Protect Journalist (CPJ), Freedom House (FH) and International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). The newly proposed declared and undeclared measures will curb online free speech and digital rights further and bring levels of online censorship on a par with offline censorship and damage democracy.

Circumscribed access to information and weakened pluralisms:

Social media access and usage by the citizens of Pakistan is growing as a means of access to information that is now routinely curtailed on mainstream offline media. The newly proposed declared and undeclared measures will not only diminish access to information but also curtail online social discourse and pluralism of information sources that are necessary for Pakistan’s pluralist polity and strengthening human rights and democracy.

The death of creativity, initiative and productivity:

Free expression, the arts and visual and performance disciplines are key to a creative twenty-first century digital society. The newly proposed declared and undeclared measures will stifle the arts, strangulate the media, disrupt local community information services, undermine online education and health campaigns, sabotage state-to-citizen digital engagement and outreach, and simply push Pakistan back to the twentieth century.

APPEAL to the PARLIAMENT, the GOVERNMENT and the PRIME MINISTER

The participants and stakeholders made a vociferous appeal to the Parliament, the political parties, the federal and provincial governments and the Prime Minister to prevent any and all attempts from all quarters to sneak into policymaking all such measures as the proposed official and unofficial drafts mentioned above that will hinder Pakistan’s march into a digital future in a globally connected world. They urged an immediate official rejection of the measures and drafts in line with the interests of the citizens of Pakistan.

ENDORSED BY ORGANISATIONS AND MOVEMENTS 

1.  AGHS Legal Aid Cell
2.  ASR Resource Centre 
3.  Aurat March Karachi 
4.  Bolo Bhi
5.  DRF - Digital Rights Foundation
6.  FN - Freedom Network
7.  HRCP - Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
8.  Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan
9.  IRADA - Institute for Research, Advocacy and Development
10.  Mangobaaz
11.  Network of Women Journalists for Digital Rights (140 members)
12.  People’s Commission for Minorities Rights
13.  PFUJ - Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists
14.  SAP Pakistan 
15.  Women Action Forum - Hyderabad 
16.  Women Action Forum - Islamabad 
17.  Women Action Forum - Karachi 
18.  Women Action Forum - Lahore 
19.  Women Democratic Front

ENDORSED BY INDIVIDUALS

1. Adnan Rehmat - journalist, analyst and media rights activist
2. Ailia Zehra - NayaDaur
3. Afia Salam
4. Alveena Sajid -  Express News
5. Ammar Masood - Columnist - AAP Communication
6. Aneela Ashraf
7. Anis Haroon - Feminist
8. Annam Lodhi
9. Asma Sherazi - Journalist
10. Badar Alam - journalist, former editor Herald
11. Gharidah Farooqi - Journalist AAP News
12. Haroon Rashid - Independent Urdu
13. Jalila Haider - activist, lawyer
14. Laiba Zainab - NayaDaur
15. Maleeha Mengal
16. Manal Khan
17. Moneeza Jahangir - Journalist
18. Nadia Malik - Geo News
19. Najia Ashar - CEO Global Neighbourhood for Media Innovation
20. Nasir Zaidi
21. Nasreen Shah - Member WAF
22. Neelam Hussain - Member WAF
23. Nighat Saeed Khan - Feminist
24. Peter Jacob 
25. Qurrat ul Ain Shirazi, Hum News
26. Ramsha Jahangir - Journalist Dawn Newspaper
27. Rubina Saigal - Member WAF
28. Sabahat Khan - Journalist
29. Saqib Jillani - Lawyer
30. Sana Ejaz - Journalist
31. Shabana Arif 
32. Shehzada Zulfiqar - President PFUJ
33. Sumaira Ashraf Rajput - Public News
34. Tahira Abdullah - human rights activist
35. Umaima Ahmed - TNS
36. Wahaj Siraj - CEO Nayatel 
37. Zeenat Khan
38. Zoya Anwer - Freelance Multimedia Journalist

Charge

The accused, Usman Sohail Butt, was charged under the following sections of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 (“PECA 2016”):

• Section 3 (Unauthorised access to information system or data)
• Section 4 (Unauthorised copying or transmission of data)
• Section 20 (1) (Offences against dignity of a natural person)  
• Section 21 (c) (Offences against modesty of a natural person)

Complaint

The complaint was filed by the brother of the victim against Usman Butt. He stated that the victim was married to the accused for two years before the marriage was dissolved. Subsequently, the accused hacked the victim’s Facebook account and used it to post ‘objectionable pictures’ of her along with her phone number. After receiving the complaint, the requisite officer at the FIA obtained data from Facebook headquarters and confirmed that the account was in use by Usman Sohail Butt. Thereafter, a mobile phone and tablet were recovered from the accused. Upon gaining possession of Usman Butt’s mobile phone, the officer noted that the accused was logged in to the victim’s Facebook account. This was confirmed through subsequent forensic analysis of the phone.

Judgment

The learned Magistrate of the District Court held that the Prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and convicted the accused for the following offences under PECA 2016:

1. Section 3-Unauthorised access to information system or data with imprisonment of 2 months
2. Section 4-Unauthorised copying or transmission of data  with imprisonment of 4 months
3. Section 21 (c)Offences against modesty of a natural person—Intimidates a natural person with any sexual act, or any sexually explicit image or video of a natural person with imprisonment of 30 months.

The charge under  s.20(1) (Offences against dignity of a natural person) was not proved and thus set aside.

Analysis

This was a clear-cut case involving hacking and intimidation through dissemination of sexually explicit material through the hacked account. The conviction was based on statements of six witnesses, corroborated by documentary evidence.

With the cooperation of Facebook, the FIA was able to confirm that the account was in use through Usman Sohail Butt’s mobile phone, and the internet connection was also traced back to him. This shows the importance of cooperation with international entities that can aid such cases by providing data in a timely and efficient manner.

The Court also noted the seriousness of the crime, stating “whenever any objectionable image of a person is transmitted through the information system it can never be fully erased and these images continuously pass from one person to another for an indefinite period”. It further acknowledged the long term impact on victims due to ostracisation from society as a result of such crimes.

This post has been authored by Namra Gilani.

Digital Rights Foundation (DRF) has launched a pro bono online portal for women seeking legal representation and psychological counselling in cases of harassment and gender-based violence. The website works by linking victims/survivors to helpful resources and connecting them with qualified and experienced pro bono lawyers so they receive all the help they need to combat the cycle of violence and abuse.

In light of the #MeToo movement worldwide and the national conversation around harassment, an unprecedented number of women have been coming forward to share their experiences of gender-based violence and abuse.

“The #MeToo movement has opened the floodgates for women’s testimonies and stories; it has also shown us the true scale of the problem as it stands in Pakistan as well as around the world. Institutional support and resources are needed to provide both legal and mental health support to survivors of harassment.” - Nighat Dad, Executive Director, Digital Rights Foundation

The aim of this portal, “Ab Aur Nahin”, is to help women who want to take legal action against their harassers but are discouraged to do so due to inaccessibility of resources. The portal (https://abaurnahin.pk/) currently has over 42 lawyers from across Pakistan out of which 26 are women lawyers and the portal hopes to expand its database to include more professionals with the passage of time. We realise that support for survivors of harassment and gender-based violence should be holistic, which is why we also provide resources for mental health counselling on the portal.

Our network of lawyers is built across Pakistan to ensure that women from different geographical destinations can approach them without any hassle. The Cyber Harassment Helpline established by DRF in 2016 has received 2302 calls over a period of two years regarding incidents of gender based violence and harassment. We saw that a large number of women wanted to proceed against the harassers legally but were either financially restrained or did not have access to a lawyer. Keeping in mind these profound reservations of women, this portal is an attempt to cater to their needs so as to serve as a helping hand to these incredibly strong women who did not only vocalize their stories but wish to pursue their cases legally.

Digital Rights Foundation is a registered research-based advocacy non-governmental organization in Pakistan. Founded by Nighat Dad in 2012, DRF focuses on ICTs to support human rights, inclusiveness, democratic processes, and digital governance. DRF works on issues of online free speech, privacy, data protection and online violence against women.

Contact person:

Nighat Dad

Executive Director, Digital Rights Foundation

[email protected]

Digital Rights Foundation’s (DRF) Cyber Harassment Helpline marked it’s two year milestone by launching the “Cyber Harassment Helpline: Two Year Report”. Helpline received 2302 complaints from December 1, 2016, till November 30, 2018,  with an average of 91 calls each month. 59% of the calls at the Helpline were by women, whereas 41% of the callers were men. The Helpline team also put forward recommendations for victim-centric reform to ensure that online spaces are safe for all.

Launch of report titled "Participants of female politicians in Pakistan's General Election 2018" in Islamabad

DRF held a seminar to launch its report titled “Online Political Participation of Female Politicians in Pakistan’s General Election 2018” on December 7, Friday in Islamabad. The event was organized in partnership with Democracy Reporting International (DRI) and the report has been supported by Heinrich Boll Stiftung Pakistan (HBS). The keynote address was delivered by Senator Sherry Rehman, where she highlighted the need for a terms of engagement with regards to social media and conduct. She also urged political party leaders to lead by example, “party leadership has to lay down the law regarding statements that demean women; degrading other women demeans us all”.
The seminar commenced with an introduction by Javed Malik, Country Representative at Democracy Reporting International (DRI). This was followed by a panel discussion titled “Social media for female political engagement: a tool or a curse?” The panel was moderated by Nighat Dad and the panelists included Senator Faratullah Babar, Senator Quratulain Marri, PMA Sumera Shams, MNA Shandana Gulzar, journalist Amber Shamsi, civil society member Nosheen Khurram from TDEA, activist Usama Khilji from Bolo Bhi and Mavra Bari  from HBS. Click here for more details.

Nighat Dad on Hum News and Geo News

Nighat Dad, on Hum News and Geo News, talked about the trends and findings that came through of DRF’s recent report which analyses the use of social media during 2018 General Elections in Pakistan. The report focuses on the online hate and harassment faced by women politicians and issues related to elections in the digital age. Ms. Dad talked about how the experience of women politicians is qualitatively different, where the harassment is gendered and is marked by sexist and abusive comments online.

DRF released ‘Experiences of Online Harassment in Pakistan: Case Studies from the Cyber Harassment Helpline’

DRF released its study documenting the experiences of Pakistani women with online harassment during the 16 days of Activism Campaign. These case studies capture the experience of Pakistani women in digital spaces and puts forward recommendations based on these lived experiences. These cases highlight the seriousness of online violence against women and the challenges women face in these spaces. Click here to download the report.

Talk on privacy and global responses at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)

Shmyla Khan delivered a talk at the annual LUMS Model United Nations (LUMUN) Conference on December 31. The talk was regardings the right to privacy in the digital age and the implications that can have for international law and regulatory authorities. Students from across Pakistan participated in the event.

DRF continued it’s #16Days of Activism Campaign

DRF continued it’s 16 Days of Activism campaign in December which focused on the theme of gender based violence at the workplace this year. During the campaign, which started on 25th November, DRF collaborated with the Network of Women Journalists for Digital Rights who shared their experiences and challenges from the field of journalism. Moreover, a study documenting the experiences of Pakistani women with online harassment was released during the 16 days Campaign. Blogs and video testimonials were also shared of journalists to highlight the importance of taking measures to tackle violence against women in all fields.

Policy dialogue for protecting the democratic space for women

On account of 16 Days of Activism Campaign, Department for International Development (DFID) and DRF held a policy dialogue on protecting the democratic space for women. Emphasis was laid on the how should the private sector, government and civil society best support the securing of safe digital spaces for women and girls in Pakistan through regulation, data and advocacy.

Session in Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan on Peace Building and Cyber Security Measures

Digital Rights Foundation in collaboration with Shaoor Foundation spoke at the Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan on cyber security and data protection on 10th December 2018. An interactive session took place with students around ethical practices online and the implications of the online world on one's offline life. The session also focused on how internet at times could be used as a radicalization tool by terrorist groups and how it is important to maintain healthy practices online.

Session in Bacha Khan University, Charsadda on Peace Building and Cyber Security Measures

Digital Rights Foundation in collaboration with Shaoor Foundation spoke at the Bacha Khan University, Charsadda on cyber security and data protection on 11th December 2018. A much needed debate around safer use of the internet took place with the students. The conversation also focused on how the internet should be used responsibly and how some groups use it for radicalization purposes which needs to be put to an end.

DRF at the Women Judges Summit

Nighat Dad, the Executive Director of DRF, spoke at the Women Judges Summit on December 22, on cyber security and what the judiciary can do to promote a culture of online safety. The event, which was held from December 21 to 23 was hosted by the U.S. Department of Justice and the purpose was to bring together women judges from across the country, to discuss, among other things, barriers to access to the justice sector and barriers to advancement within the legal profession. The judges also shared their experiences from their respective provinces and formulated possible solutions to counter bias and other impediments to the justice system, while building bridges between the senior and junior judicial leadership.

Amongst the many other points raised by her, Ms. Dad stressed upon the importance of the members of the judiciary keeping themselves abreast of the technological advances, reminding them that every case related to the cyber was unique in its own way  and called for judicial education to include a section on cyber crime, given its relevance in this day and age.

DRF at Child Protection Awareness Campaign

Nighat Dad spoke at the closing ceremony of British Council’s Child Protection Awareness Campaign held on 18th December. She talked about how children can protect themselves online and how parents can make sure their children use the internet safely. The event was organized to educate school teachers and coordinators on child neglect and child abuse so as to reduce the impact of abuse on present and future generations. The closing ceremony acknowledged the role of principals and teachers to empower children in their own protection and also to promote school based child protection mechanism to prevent and respond to child abuse. The ceremony began with a keynote address by the Country Director British Council, Rosemary Hilhorst. Other speakers from civic organisations also gave more insights on child protection policies and practices.

Workshop on Ethical Journalism and Digital Rights for Journalists, Karachi

On 21st December 2018, DRF conducted a workshop for journalists in Karachi on ethical journalism and digital rights. The workshop consisted of an awareness raising session on digital rights and the legal landscape that governs digital platforms for freedom of media and journalists. This was followed by a discussion on whether the existing media ethics are suitable for the evolving digital media landscape or new and different standards are needed. The deliberations also focused on actions needed to tackle the spread of fake news and disinformation online. This was found particularly important by the participants as digital misinformation is extremely potent in Pakistan, owing to a large segment of the population lacking digital literacy and being vulnerable to all kinds of online and digital propaganda. The participants were also given hands-on training and specifically designed toolkits to guide them on how they can make online spaces safe for themselves.

Workshop on ethical journalism and online safety with Digital Broadcast TV, Islamabad

On 26th and 27th December 2018, DRF conducted a two-day workshop with the staff of DBTV in Islamabad. The workshop was part of DRF’s initiative of conducting online safety trainings with media houses considering the increasing importance of cyber security, particularly for media organisations, whose most valuable assets are their content. Two interactive sessions were conducted on ethical journalism and fake news in the digital era, which the participants found quite useful. Effective tools and protocols for online safety were also discussed to safeguard the highly sensitive information of media houses and how to maintain its privacy.

DRF at Indus News discussing social media in 2018

On December 25, Jannat Fazal discussed the ongoing social media trends that have been observed in the year 2018. One of the major trends noticed was the increase in scam calls that lead to online harassment. An example of such scams is WhatsApp hacks which have exponentially increased specifically in the past three months. One of the major pitfalls in these scams is language barriers and gullibility of the user that traps them in this uncanny fraud.

DRF at GEO News discussing the Impact of Social Media

On December 31, 2018, Jannat Fazal spoke on the potential impact of social media on children and how it affects their mental health. She talked about how excessive use of social media leads to mental illnesses but no cause and effect relationship has been identified through research. Mental illnesses have different determinants, social media can be one of them but there is not enough research to posit it as a cause.

Members of Network of Women Journalists for Digital Rights continued to pen articles and blogs

Members of DRF's Network of Women Journalists for Digital Rights continued to share articles and blogs on digital rights issues which can be found on the Hamara Internet website here. The Network advocates for women and other minority groups to have safe access to online platforms, where they can exercise their constitutional right of free speech without facing constant threats. The Network members pen articles to document these threats, bring forward issues in the implementation of legislation to prevent and protect women journalists from gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment both online and offline, and also advocate their access to effective remedies.