| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Internet access: a human right |
| 2012-03-12 |
| [Dawn] IN November, the Pakistain Telecommunications Authority (PTA) attempted to filter 1,500 words out of SMS messages. The initiative was ridiculed into oblivion, and one thought the government would take a hiatus from clumsy censorship. But no. The National ICT Research and Development Fund, under the aegis of the Ministry of Information Technology, recently advertised a public tender for the development of an Internet filtering and blocking system. The move indicates how completely out of touch the powers that be are with contemporary Pakistain, the 21st century and democratic values on the whole. Internet service providers (ISPs), who finance the fund, have defended the filter, arguing that it is not a censorship tool, but a means by which to make existing efforts to block online content more time- and cost-efficient. This is utter nonsense. The power to efficiently and effectively block up to 50 million websites, as per the tender's demands, is an incentive for widespread online censorship. Many indications that the government will take improper advantage of a censoring mechanism already exist. Pakistain currently ranks 151st out of a list of 179 countries on a 2011 media freedom ranking by Reporters Without Borders. This is hardly the environment in which to introduce an Internet filtering system with the hope that it will be judiciously deployed. The tender has also been announced at a time when it is clear the authorities are hurting from relatively unrestrained media coverage of their activities: last month, the Pakistain Electronic Media Regulatory Authority announced new regulations for private television channels, which prevent the broadcast of material that undermines Pakistain's illusory sovereignty, compromises the national interest, or ridicules organs of the state. It is also no coincidence that the call for an Internet filter comes the year before a general election -- a last-ditch effort to minimise critical discourse about the government in campaign season? The political motivations behind the tender suggest that the criteria for blocking online content will be harsh and arbitrary. One can expect much benign content to be censored. Clearly, no one at the Ministry of Information Technology is thinking about the fallout of limited information access for students, businesses, scientific researchers and others trying to engage with and compete in an innovative, global marketplace. It is also worth noting that the Internet filter tender not only foreshadows censorship to come, but also highlights the extent to which it is rampant. Private-sector ISPs are agreeable to financing the filter in response to continued pressure from the civilian government and army to block online content. When talking to free-speech activists, they defend their actions by arguing that the Internet is already being censored, the filter will simply automate the process to save time and money for the ISPs. In sum, censorship is already a fait accompli in Pakistain. It is appalling that this tender was announced during a civilian government's tenure. Freedom of speech is a fundamental requirement of a functioning democracy. The fact that this government is willing to pay money for technology that institutionalises censorship speaks poorly of its democratic credentials, its long-term vision for the country, and its aspirations for Pakistain on the international stage. Pakistain's luddite politicians may not realise this, but in the 21st century, the freedom of the Internet is a gauge of a country's genuine commitment to democracy and human rights ...which are usually entirely different from personal liberty... (lest we forget, the United Nations ...boodling on the grand scale... has declared Internet access to be a human right). This is especially true when governments seek both to censor their citizens and invade their privacy: in addition to blocking websites, the proposed filter will seek to infiltrate encrypted content. If Pakistain goes ahead with this inane plan, its civilian government will be spoken of in the same terms as prior dictatorships: regressive, authoritarian, undemocratic. For a moment, let's concede that the Pakistain government cannot comprehend that censorship is bad, and that while it stifles dissent in the short run, it sparks social discontent in the long run. There is still no excuse for the government's failure to think through this initiative strategically. In the coming years, Pakistain could emerge on the world stage as the country that stood by Iran while the world slapped sanctions on its economy, and that served as an interlocutor for the Afghan Taliban. These approaches serve Pakistain's national interest, but they do little for its public image or soft power. If Pakistain also gains notoriety for installing a firewall, it will have little claim to any reputation other than that of rogue state or international pariah. The Internet filter might also destroy Pakistain's façade of abhorring religious and violent extremism. Consider the websites the government has already blocked: pornography, YouTube, Facebook, Baloch nationalist sites and the online edition of Rolling Stone magazine for publishing an article critiquing military expenditure. Now consider the websites you can browse with impunity: the home pages of jihadi groups that spew hate speech, incitements to violence, prejudicial content about religious minorities and rival sects, and worse. Pakistain's ever-declining human rights record has until now been mitigated through perfunctory political rhetoric. A clear pattern of anti-liberal censorship will expose the sham. One final niggling detail: Internet filters don't work. The 2009 Iranian election, spreading discontent in China, and the Arab Spring -- these events have shown that Internet blocks don't prevent citizens from using digital and social media technologies for political activism. If the government has genuine concerns about online content, it has to work jointly with ISPs, the media industry, academic institutions and non-governmental media monitoring organizations to minimise the impact and reach of egregious material. When it came to SMS filtering, civil society mocked the government into retreat. But Internet filtering is no laughing matter -- it is nothing less than the denial of a basic human right. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #10 Freedom of speech (as well as Freedom of Religion) is a human right in that all humans have a basic right to say what they want or believe whatever God(s) or not they wish. Weather their government allows them to is a different story. This also pertains to the 'content' of the Internet. I think there must be some limits however. Yelling 'Fire!' in a Theater (or Whitesnake concert) is one - it can cause direct harm to someone else. Sending out millions of spam emails is another - it can prevent others from being able to use their email. Saying that God is dead, is alive, is an imaginary friend, or is Allah, Allan, Cthulhu, Obama (has anyone ever seen those two at the same time?), or whatever (or simply saying God exists) is a 'right'. Even saying that a particular religion is vile and their 'god' is pathetic is also protected - or should be. Unfortunately Human Rights has been abused to mean just about anything. Parking, Income, Food, Cellphone, Housing, Internet access, Healthcare, etc... And worst of all the 'human right not to be offended'. Those are *not* rights - you may have the right to have the ability to access those things - but you do not have a direct right *to* those things. By that I mean you have should be able to access those things (provided you are able to - usually meaning you can afford it or have the means). (Or, for example, to turn away from that which offends you, turn off the TV or radio or simply leave the room - but not silence the speaker. Unless you own the private forum - for example you can't spam, threaten, or encourage violence on Rantburg - that is not a right - and Fred - who 'owns' Rantburg, (or his delegated Mods) can remove your postings, sinktrap them or outright ban you. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2012-03-12 18:48 |
| #9 A right is a restriction on government. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-03-12 16:57 |
| #8 Fred, I love it when you you dig up these gems. But you are an expert in Human Rights! Everyone is, about their own rights of course, everyone is a tad Myopic after that. As for the parking "rights" -lets see the claimed right to use publically owned property (a street) for ones own private purposes. Sounds like squatters rights if anything,and worth as much. No wait -it does sound like Ottawa! |
| Posted by: Northern Cousin 2012-03-12 15:21 |
| #7 Degrading the term again, I see. At least it's not as bad as the idiot in Ottawa (ok, redundant) that thinks having a parking space in front of your house is a "human right"... |
| Posted by: mojo 2012-03-12 14:56 |
| #6 >>Pakistain's luddite politicians may not realise this, but in the 21st century, the freedom of the Internet is a gauge of a country's genuine commitment to democracy and human rights I will try to remember that back-patting comments like that, and not laugh, when America tries to pass things like SOPA and ACTA into law. ACTA has been passed there. And I would bet all the money in my pockets that 90 percent of Rantburgians have no idea what its content contains. |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2012-03-12 11:59 |
| #5 I posted the article to go with the one we had a few days ago about the lady whose human right to a parking place had been violated. As usual the "human right" is the representation of the actual "God-given right" that underlies it. In the case of the parking place it's the right of privacy, to be left alone to do as you please unless you're harming someone else. The argument comes over the definition of "harm." I lean toward the idea of "no blood, no harm," myself. Even if someone parking his/her/its car on the grass is ugly you'll probably survive the experience. The same applies to the "human right" of the internet. The inhabitants of Lower Slobbovia or Ice Station Omega have no "right" to the internet, anymore than you or I do.    if{     it's available    }then{     y'gotta pay for it    } That's not a right, it's a commodity. The actual "human right" lies in the content, which is what this author was actually talking about. The "God-given" right is that of free and unfettered speech -- which includes perhaps especially the freedom to mock and deride politicians, maybe government in general, the military, holy men, and even (gasp!) religion. I would have a hard time becoming a "human rights expert" because they're greasy, oily things that are so damned hard to pin down. (The "human rights" more than the "experts," though the experts exhibit many of the same characteristics...) Often "human rights" equate to the end result of a basic liberty (let's call them that to distinguish the two and avoid typing "God-given rights" and firing up the atheist crowd.) Almost invariably they are granted by government. The Soviet constitution, if I remember, contained among other goodies a "right to employment" and the "right to housing." The children of all ages who turned out to Occupy [Insert Location Here] were demanding the "human right" to have their college loans annulled, to absolutely free housing, and a dozen or so other things, some of which sounded good at first blush but which on consideration were pretty stoopid. |
| Posted by: Fred 2012-03-12 10:37 |
| #4 Governments role is just to enforce contract between private parties (and perhaps defend patents that enable them). There's no need for them to insert themselves without invitation. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-03-12 08:42 |
| #3 Government does have a role. The cable that comes to your house and business? The wireless that your smartphone and laptop sniffs? Regulated by government. Someone had to enforce certain technical standards and ensure orderly deployment into the public land and airwaves. Those cables don't lay themselves. Add to that the standards (such as they are) for use and the taxes paid (hundred fifty year tradition going back to the telegraph), and yes, government has a role. What we don't want is government regulating internet content. Good luck. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2012-03-12 07:34 |
| #2 Internet access is a human right, in as far as it's a form of speech that governments have no role in. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-03-12 06:16 |
| #1 One final niggling detail: Internet filters don't work. The 2009 Iranian election, spreading discontent in China, and the Arab Spring -- these events have shown that Internet blocks don't prevent citizens from using digital and social media technologies for political activism. Maybe, unless the likes of Siemens and Nokia step in to ensure the deaths of activist bloggers. |
| Posted by: gorb 2012-03-12 00:49 |