Under S.R.O. (1)/2019, notified and dated, “Islamabad, the 21 January, 2020”, the federal government, after the approval of the cabinet, has put out what the notification calls Citizens Protection (Against Online Harm) Rules, 2020. The rules (we shall shortly come to them) “shall come into force at once” and are supposed to be in continuation of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (XL of 2016).
Those who recall the PECA 2016 process would remember that the government of the day — the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz — was eager to push through some over-the-top measures. That was resisted by a number of stakeholders and there was much back and forth in terms of alternate drafts and hearings. That is normal if one is not living in China, North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia, among other such states.
Since Pakistan was still somewhat of a democracy then, there was the expected tussle between predictable government heavy-handedness and societal pushback. What resulted was not entirely to the satisfaction of society, but it did defang some of the provisions the government wanted in the bill which was then legislated.
Not so with the rules we began with.
There has been no process, no alternate drafts, no hearings. So, the first thing about this notification that shall be published in the official gazette is simple and requires no expertise for that basic determination: its process was secretive and its provisions are arbitrary, drastic and, as we shall see, ambitiously stupid. Consider.
While the rules refer to citizens’ protection, the term occurs only three times in the 2659-word text, including in the title. Here’s the text of the other two mentions:
(d) establish one or more database servers in Pakistan by the Social Media Company, within twelve months of the date of publication of these Rules to record and store data and online content, within the territorial boundaries of Pakistan for citizen data privacy; (e) shall remove, suspend or disable access to such account, online content of citizens of Pakistan residing outside its territorial boundaries and posts on online content that are involved in spreading of fake news or defamation and violates or affects the religious, cultural, ethnic, or national security sensitivities of Pakistan. (italics added)
This text should make one contradiction clear: while (d) talks of citizen data privacy, it also wants data servers based in Pakistan, which is a surefire move to control, monitor and surveil data; (e) makes it abundantly clear that the move is also meant to monitor and control the views of Pakistanis based abroad. One doesn’t need to make much of a case for why this clause has been inserted.
The intention become clearer if one reads what precedes (d) and (e):
This is a non-starter. The social media companies listed in the rules have no incentive for reasons of Pakistan’s divisive and authoritarian politics, lack of infrastructure and expertise, and a small market to maintain offices here, park a focal rep with staff in Islamabad and be obligated to provide any kind of information to the National Coordinator.
The rules make it clear that the final authority for determining what content trifles with the sensitivity of the state rests in the person of the National Coordinator. And while the company will have a right to representation, it won’t be before a court of law but “before a committee constituted by the Federal Government…”
But pray, what is the content the Rules list? The National Coordinator will “advise the Federal or Provincial Governments, and issue instructions to departments, authorities and agencies, in accordance with requirements of National Security in relation to management or regulation or functioning of social media companies.” (italics added)
This is the nub. At another place the Rules also talk about “religious, cultural, ethnic and national security sensitivities of Pakistan.” The rest of the categories are pro forma. It is national security, as defined by the known custodians of the term, which lies at the heart of these Rules. And the term, lest anyone has any doubts, does not just mean security of the state as is generally known to students of International Relations even in its narrow, traditional sense. In Pakistan’s case it primarily incorporates the organisational interests of the custodians and, more narrowly, whichever coterie is at the helm of the organisation at any given point in time.
Put another way, national security becomes a catch-all term for suppressing any voice critical of the custodians even if that voice speaks genuinely in the interest of national security. If, Darwin-forbid, anyone seeks to voice a broader definition of national security which actually puts some premium on the citizens and their aspirations, (s)he has to be hounded to the deepest dungeons of patriotic Hell.
Has this government, which fronts for the custodians in the most obsequious manner, realised that for any number of reasons, including those listed above, no social media company will be coerced into the arrangement that these Rules put out?
In which case, when the social media companies listed in the Rules will tell the government to lump it (or worse), what will it do? Will it ask them to close shop and ship out, as the Rules suggest? And if it does that and they do precisely that, how will the government and the custodians push out their patriotic baloney? What will their social media teams and bots et al do? Will they use ravens or pigeons to send out messages? How will they plug tweets and Facebook posts et cetera that serve the presumed interests of Pakistan? What about businesses? How will they operate? The cab services? Has the genius drafter thought about all this?
It does seem to me that in their misguided enthusiasm to coerce international social media companies, the drafter(s) of these Rules forgot a simple rule: coercion is a function of leverage, massive leverage. Well, here’s the news: Pakistan doesn’t have that. You cock a snook at them, they will middle-digit you. After that, we could all go back to writing letters in longhand which requires some degree of efficiency in any language known to man or beast. Going by what is put out by the custodians and their front company, that to me looks more daunting than Hercules’ 12 Labours.
Corollary: this is going to hurt you far more than it would the social media companies. The economy and the geopolitics require (yes, that’s national security) to open up and regulate sensibly and justiciably, not through arbitrary rules meant to satisfy egos.
Finally, does anyone seriously want to make Pakistan look like Occupied Kashmir?
The writer is former News Editor of The Friday Times and believes that bounded rationality invariably results in boundless stupidity. He reluctantly tweets @ejazhaider
Those who recall the PECA 2016 process would remember that the government of the day — the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz — was eager to push through some over-the-top measures. That was resisted by a number of stakeholders and there was much back and forth in terms of alternate drafts and hearings. That is normal if one is not living in China, North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia, among other such states.
Since Pakistan was still somewhat of a democracy then, there was the expected tussle between predictable government heavy-handedness and societal pushback. What resulted was not entirely to the satisfaction of society, but it did defang some of the provisions the government wanted in the bill which was then legislated.
Not so with the rules we began with.
There has been no process, no alternate drafts, no hearings. So, the first thing about this notification that shall be published in the official gazette is simple and requires no expertise for that basic determination: its process was secretive and its provisions are arbitrary, drastic and, as we shall see, ambitiously stupid. Consider.
While the rules refer to citizens’ protection, the term occurs only three times in the 2659-word text, including in the title. Here’s the text of the other two mentions:
(d) establish one or more database servers in Pakistan by the Social Media Company, within twelve months of the date of publication of these Rules to record and store data and online content, within the territorial boundaries of Pakistan for citizen data privacy; (e) shall remove, suspend or disable access to such account, online content of citizens of Pakistan residing outside its territorial boundaries and posts on online content that are involved in spreading of fake news or defamation and violates or affects the religious, cultural, ethnic, or national security sensitivities of Pakistan. (italics added)
This text should make one contradiction clear: while (d) talks of citizen data privacy, it also wants data servers based in Pakistan, which is a surefire move to control, monitor and surveil data; (e) makes it abundantly clear that the move is also meant to monitor and control the views of Pakistanis based abroad. One doesn’t need to make much of a case for why this clause has been inserted.
The intention become clearer if one reads what precedes (d) and (e):
- Other Obligations of the Social Media Companies.- A Social Media Company Shall;-
- register with the Authority, within three months of the coming into force of these Rules;
- establish a permanent registered office in Pakistan with a physical address located in Islamabad, within three months of the coming into force of these Rules;
- appoint in Pakistan, a focal person based in Pakistan for coordination with the National Coordinator and the Authority within three months of the date of coming into force of these Rules;…
This is a non-starter. The social media companies listed in the rules have no incentive for reasons of Pakistan’s divisive and authoritarian politics, lack of infrastructure and expertise, and a small market to maintain offices here, park a focal rep with staff in Islamabad and be obligated to provide any kind of information to the National Coordinator.
The rules make it clear that the final authority for determining what content trifles with the sensitivity of the state rests in the person of the National Coordinator. And while the company will have a right to representation, it won’t be before a court of law but “before a committee constituted by the Federal Government…”
But pray, what is the content the Rules list? The National Coordinator will “advise the Federal or Provincial Governments, and issue instructions to departments, authorities and agencies, in accordance with requirements of National Security in relation to management or regulation or functioning of social media companies.” (italics added)
This is the nub. At another place the Rules also talk about “religious, cultural, ethnic and national security sensitivities of Pakistan.” The rest of the categories are pro forma. It is national security, as defined by the known custodians of the term, which lies at the heart of these Rules. And the term, lest anyone has any doubts, does not just mean security of the state as is generally known to students of International Relations even in its narrow, traditional sense. In Pakistan’s case it primarily incorporates the organisational interests of the custodians and, more narrowly, whichever coterie is at the helm of the organisation at any given point in time.
Put another way, national security becomes a catch-all term for suppressing any voice critical of the custodians even if that voice speaks genuinely in the interest of national security. If, Darwin-forbid, anyone seeks to voice a broader definition of national security which actually puts some premium on the citizens and their aspirations, (s)he has to be hounded to the deepest dungeons of patriotic Hell.
Has this government, which fronts for the custodians in the most obsequious manner, realised that for any number of reasons, including those listed above, no social media company will be coerced into the arrangement that these Rules put out?
In which case, when the social media companies listed in the Rules will tell the government to lump it (or worse), what will it do? Will it ask them to close shop and ship out, as the Rules suggest? And if it does that and they do precisely that, how will the government and the custodians push out their patriotic baloney? What will their social media teams and bots et al do? Will they use ravens or pigeons to send out messages? How will they plug tweets and Facebook posts et cetera that serve the presumed interests of Pakistan? What about businesses? How will they operate? The cab services? Has the genius drafter thought about all this?
It does seem to me that in their misguided enthusiasm to coerce international social media companies, the drafter(s) of these Rules forgot a simple rule: coercion is a function of leverage, massive leverage. Well, here’s the news: Pakistan doesn’t have that. You cock a snook at them, they will middle-digit you. After that, we could all go back to writing letters in longhand which requires some degree of efficiency in any language known to man or beast. Going by what is put out by the custodians and their front company, that to me looks more daunting than Hercules’ 12 Labours.
Corollary: this is going to hurt you far more than it would the social media companies. The economy and the geopolitics require (yes, that’s national security) to open up and regulate sensibly and justiciably, not through arbitrary rules meant to satisfy egos.
Finally, does anyone seriously want to make Pakistan look like Occupied Kashmir?
The writer is former News Editor of The Friday Times and believes that bounded rationality invariably results in boundless stupidity. He reluctantly tweets @ejazhaider