Businesses, rights activists decry internet slowdown
AFP
Published August 19, 2024
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s government is throttling the internet and social media while it tests new controls to crush dissent, activists and business leaders say, putting the country’s economic recovery at risk.
Internet networks have been up to 40 per cent slower than normal since July, according to one IT association, while documents, images and voice notes have been disrupted on WhatsApp, used by tens of millions of people.
Digital rights experts believe the state is testing a ‘firewall’ — a security system that monitors network traffic but can also be used to control online spaces.
“The Internet slowdown is due to the installation of a national firewall and content filtering system by the state aimed at increasing surveillance and at censoring political dissent, especially the criticism of the security establishment for its interference in politics,” digital rights expert and activist Usama Khilji told AFP.
The authorities appear to be targeting WhatsApp because of its end-to-end encryption capabilities, which enable users to securely share information without it being accessed by any third party, he added.
The government and the telecommunications authority for weeks refused to comment on the slowdown.
Pakistan Telecommunications Authority declined to comment when contacted by AFP.
Not business as usual
The issues have surfaced as Pakistan’s military — the country’s most powerful institution — says it is battling the so-called “digital terrorism”.
Regular rallies have been held this year demanding the state do more to tackle militant violence in the border regions with Afghanistan, while protesters in southwestern Balochistan have rallied over alleged rights abuses by authorities in their crackdown on separatist groups.
But analysts say the main target of the digital disruption is the party of jailed opposition leader Imran Khan, still wildly popular and boosted by a young, tech-savvy voter base.
Prominent Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir has launched a legal challenge against the government over “the apparent installation of a firewall” at Islamabad High Court, which is due to hear the case on Monday.
The firewall’s “inexplicable opacity and ambiguity” is sapping Pakistan’s economic potential and could cost its IT sector up to $300 million, according to the Pakistan Software Houses Association, which represents IT firms.
Shahzad Arshad, head of the Wireless & Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan, warned that if “this continues, we will see a mass exodus of businesses from Pakistan”. He added that connectivity had slowed by up 40pc over the past month.
But even as authorities throttled connectivity and WhatsApp access, Pakistan’s Punjab province splashed out last week on adverts in New York’s Times Square — trying to sell itself as an “IT city”.
“Even if a firewall is necessary for security, trials could have saved the livelihoods of thousands of freelance software developers and avoided damage to Pakistan’s credibility as a reliable supplier of IT/IT-enabled services,” Ehsan Malik, CEO of the Pakistan Business Council said Saturday.
AFP has contacted WhatsApp parent company Meta for comment.
‘Fundamental rights’
Activists have long criticised the government’s censorship and control of the internet and media, shrinking an already limited space for free speech in the conservative country. The social media platform X has been banned in Pakistan since the election when it was used to air allegations of poll rigging against Mr Khan’s party.
The party’s social media team has also been targeted by arrests and detentions.
Shahzad Ahmad, head of the independent digital rights watchdog Bytes for All in Pakistan, said the firewall was largely designed to give the government control of the internet.“We believe that the firewall will create distrust among IT investors in Pakistan… and will also compromise citizens’ fundamental rights.”
Published in Dawn, August 19th, 2024
Predatory instincts
‘surveillance capitalism’
Huma Yusuf
THE government installs a ‘web management system’. Unidentified men whisk away a YouTuber who posts satirical content. A fashion designer threatens legal action against the director and cast of a TV serial. A legislator objects to a female professional’s outfit and calls for SOPs for women’s attire. These may seem like disconnected matters. But they are signs that a surveillance society is becoming entrenched in Pakistan, an outcome we must resist.
Anxieties about surveillance have been mounting globally and are largely linked to ‘surveillance capitalism’, ie, the commodification of personal data, particularly by Big Tech. There is a growing focus on the extent to which individuals are aware of what personal data they are surrendering, to whom, and why.
Concerns about surveillance capitalism mounted when it became clear that customer data collection was enabling not only targeted advertising and improved user experience but also behavioural manipulation, for example, by skewing voting preferences. The regulation of Big Tech and its use of personal data will soon be a key human rights battle.
In this context, old-fashioned state surveillance — in the sense of the state collecting information about its citizens — seems passé. But it continues to be a major concern globally, and certainly in Pakistan.
No good comes of surveillance states.
In an article for Constitutional Political Economy, Alshamy et al argue that state surveillance can either be protective-productive or predatory. In the former case, the state collects personal information to support citizens and improve welfare service delivery. In the latter, state data collection “reduces citizen welfare by violating the rights of citizens or by extracting resources from citizens to benefit a small group of politically connected elites. This harms individual agency, freedom and self-governing democracy.”
The authors note that predatory data collection is non-transparent, poorly legislated and regulated, and often in the service of nebulous national security considerations that can be interpreted variously by whichever stakeholder has most power. In this scenario, the courts become helpless to challenge surveillance, as they too become subsumed by the state narrative. The plight of missing persons in Pakistan is the perfect illustration of a predatory surveillance state in action.
Increasing attention is paid to the links between capitalist and state surveillance, in the sense of public understanding that private sector players, such as internet service providers or social media platforms, are required to surrender customer data when the state comes calling.
But what is less considered is the impact of surveillance becoming normalised — the de facto approach to political and social interaction. When power becomes synonymous with the ability to surveil the activities of others — shame them, report them, and so ultimately control them — then it will contaminate society. Those who seek status and control will increasingly use surveillance as a tool to shape public behaviour to their own ends. Meanwhile, self-censorship, the survival tactic of Pakistani media, will become the default mode of all citizens.
Pakistan has already seen the toxic effect of this kind of social surveillance through the misuse of the blasphemy laws — the fear that someone may perceive something you say, do, or absentmindedly forward to be profane, and wield that ultimate power of an accusation, resulting in conviction or lynching.
But we are now on the precipice where social control and abuse previously linked to state monitoring of ‘anti-establishment’ activities is becoming more pervasive. We are moving from the realm of state and capitalist surveillance to one of social surveillance, one in which citizens, taking a cue from the state itself, are willing to police each other’s clothing, artistic output and sense of humour.
The powers that be may be pleased by this ripple effect. But they should tread with caution as no good comes of surveillance states. The most obvious toll is economic. We have heard all week about the millions lost to internet disruptions while the state installs its ‘web management system’, but that may not be the extent of it. Academic research on the Stasi in East Germany (admittedly an extreme example) has documented economic losses from lack of innovation, less self-employment, widespread unemployment and brain drain.
More material is the social toll of less inclusive, more predatory societies. In our highly weaponised and already conflict-prone context this would manifest as surveillance as a trigger for violence. The ultimate problem with surveillance is that its parameters are necessarily non-transparent and ever-shifting, meaning everyone is vulnerable. Who knows who already has eyes on your data?
The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
X: @humayusuf
Published in Dawn, August 19th, 2024
Published August 19, 2024
DAWN
THE government installs a ‘web management system’. Unidentified men whisk away a YouTuber who posts satirical content. A fashion designer threatens legal action against the director and cast of a TV serial. A legislator objects to a female professional’s outfit and calls for SOPs for women’s attire. These may seem like disconnected matters. But they are signs that a surveillance society is becoming entrenched in Pakistan, an outcome we must resist.
Anxieties about surveillance have been mounting globally and are largely linked to ‘surveillance capitalism’, ie, the commodification of personal data, particularly by Big Tech. There is a growing focus on the extent to which individuals are aware of what personal data they are surrendering, to whom, and why.
Concerns about surveillance capitalism mounted when it became clear that customer data collection was enabling not only targeted advertising and improved user experience but also behavioural manipulation, for example, by skewing voting preferences. The regulation of Big Tech and its use of personal data will soon be a key human rights battle.
In this context, old-fashioned state surveillance — in the sense of the state collecting information about its citizens — seems passé. But it continues to be a major concern globally, and certainly in Pakistan.
No good comes of surveillance states.
In an article for Constitutional Political Economy, Alshamy et al argue that state surveillance can either be protective-productive or predatory. In the former case, the state collects personal information to support citizens and improve welfare service delivery. In the latter, state data collection “reduces citizen welfare by violating the rights of citizens or by extracting resources from citizens to benefit a small group of politically connected elites. This harms individual agency, freedom and self-governing democracy.”
The authors note that predatory data collection is non-transparent, poorly legislated and regulated, and often in the service of nebulous national security considerations that can be interpreted variously by whichever stakeholder has most power. In this scenario, the courts become helpless to challenge surveillance, as they too become subsumed by the state narrative. The plight of missing persons in Pakistan is the perfect illustration of a predatory surveillance state in action.
Increasing attention is paid to the links between capitalist and state surveillance, in the sense of public understanding that private sector players, such as internet service providers or social media platforms, are required to surrender customer data when the state comes calling.
But what is less considered is the impact of surveillance becoming normalised — the de facto approach to political and social interaction. When power becomes synonymous with the ability to surveil the activities of others — shame them, report them, and so ultimately control them — then it will contaminate society. Those who seek status and control will increasingly use surveillance as a tool to shape public behaviour to their own ends. Meanwhile, self-censorship, the survival tactic of Pakistani media, will become the default mode of all citizens.
Pakistan has already seen the toxic effect of this kind of social surveillance through the misuse of the blasphemy laws — the fear that someone may perceive something you say, do, or absentmindedly forward to be profane, and wield that ultimate power of an accusation, resulting in conviction or lynching.
But we are now on the precipice where social control and abuse previously linked to state monitoring of ‘anti-establishment’ activities is becoming more pervasive. We are moving from the realm of state and capitalist surveillance to one of social surveillance, one in which citizens, taking a cue from the state itself, are willing to police each other’s clothing, artistic output and sense of humour.
The powers that be may be pleased by this ripple effect. But they should tread with caution as no good comes of surveillance states. The most obvious toll is economic. We have heard all week about the millions lost to internet disruptions while the state installs its ‘web management system’, but that may not be the extent of it. Academic research on the Stasi in East Germany (admittedly an extreme example) has documented economic losses from lack of innovation, less self-employment, widespread unemployment and brain drain.
More material is the social toll of less inclusive, more predatory societies. In our highly weaponised and already conflict-prone context this would manifest as surveillance as a trigger for violence. The ultimate problem with surveillance is that its parameters are necessarily non-transparent and ever-shifting, meaning everyone is vulnerable. Who knows who already has eyes on your data?
The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
X: @humayusuf
Published in Dawn, August 19th, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment