Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill: NA panel on info tech to meet on May 20

The National Assembly Standing Committee on Information Technology will meet on Wednesday to analyse the proposed amendments/suggestions received from general public/stakeholders on the proposed controversial "Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill, 2015 (PECB).
After receiving severe criticism from civil society, stakeholders and parliamentarians, the government decided to send back the PECB, finalised by the committee and request amendments. The committee chairman Captain Mohammad Safdar (retd) later asked the general public and other stakeholders to send in written objections on the relevant clauses of the modified draft of PECB along with proposed amendments and justification for such amendments within a period of seven days.
According to the committee chairman, a wrong perception was being created in the media that the National Assembly was making a law against the freedom of expression or social media. It was further decided the Committee may also hold a public hearing on the Bill in order to make an informed decision. However, sources revealed that the idea of public hearing has been dropped for the time being.
The civil society and telecom experts maintained that the proposed Bill contains clauses that could control or suppress different forms of political dissent in social media which could affect civil liberties directly or indirectly with no linkage with the successful implementation of National Action Plan.
Proposals for amending the cyber laws have been submitted by Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan (ISPAK), Pakistan Software Houses Association (P@SHA), Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), Reporters Without Borders (RWB) Bolo Bhi, Digital Rights Foundation (DRF), Bytes For All (B4A), Media Matters for Democracy (MMFD) and Institute for Research, Advocacy and Development (IRAADA). According to their proposals/suggestions available with Business Recorder, the guiding principle of the proposed law should be that only those offences that occur in electronic form in the cyber world and are not covered under Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in any form should be a part of this legislation. Practically any offence under the PPC can be facilitated through electronic means. This does not mean that all offences of the PPC should be covered under the PECB.
Since this is preliminary a criminal law and all offences carry imprisonment as well, the prosecution process would be as follows: FIA will receive a complaint from anyone or they can initiate themselves. FIR will be registered against the accused. Accused will be arrested with or without warrants, kept in remand, etc. Accused has to get bail from the court. In its current form, the PECB will adversely affect the IT industry, young professionals, economic investment in the country and constitutional rights and safeguards guaranteed to citizens, those opposed to the cyber law argue.
They further proposed that procedural safeguards need to be inserted that uphold and protect citizens' right to privacy, speech and access. Industry must be allowed to operate in a non-stifling environment as per their legitimate right to do business. All powers of authorities set up or empowered under the bill must be subjected to due process and not be overbroad, to curb and keep in check any excesses that may be committed as a result.
The Joint committee recommended omitting Section 9: Glorification of an offence and hate speech - This section criminalizes even the 'preparation' of intelligence even if it is not disseminated. Then, subsection (a) reads 'glorify an offence or person accused or convicted.' This reverses the innocent until proven guilty principle; a crime has not been established. As per this section, to advocate for a person wrongly accused or convicted of a crime would not just be illegal but punishable by five years in prison or Rs 10 million or both. Moreover, critiques of judgements - which are commonplace - could also be criminalized, as would be any voices highlighting miscarriage of justice as they could be misconstrued as 'glorifying' an accused or convicted person.
Offences against the dignity of a natural person - This is already covered under Defamation Ordinance, 2002 and Defamation (Amendment) Act, 2004 and penalised under Section 500 and 501 of PPC. Section 19 criminalizes the misuse of photographs and information in sexually explicit conduct. Given that, and the fact that a defamation law already exists, there is no need for this section since it deals with reputation damage.
Moreover, an exemption has been created only for the broadcast media and not others. Previously, Section 18 & 19 was compounded together and a proviso existed that protected speech made in good faith or as an act of political expression etc. Most problematic is that the redress mechanism stipulated flows through not court, but the PTA, allowing for misuse not only by complainants but also the Authority, since it has been left up to its discretion what must be removed or blocked based on a complaint.
Spamming-The transmission of 'unsolicited intelligence' without the 'express permission of the recipient' has been criminalized as per the language of this clause. It is unclear as to how one must acquire express permission. Definition of spamming is also not provided; neither is any threshold specified.
Power to manage intelligence and issue directions for removal of blocking of access of any intelligence through any information system - this clause gives the government/PTA unfettered powers to block access or remove speech not only on the internet but transmitted through any device, through its own determination. Not only does this infringes fundamental rights of citizens and curbs media freedom but has huge implications where privacy is concerned. This clause would allow the authority - and in turn the government - to acquire powers to order media houses' web platforms to remove any material they deem inappropriate.
The joint Committee further proposed that definition of critical infrastructure must include private businesses as well, not just government infrastructure. Definition of service provider needs to be amended. As per the definition in clause (iv) service providers - traditionally ISPs and telecom operators - has been expanded to now include any place that offers access to the internet, to the public, ie, restaurants, malls, hotels, airports, stations and the additional burden of retaining traffic data has been placed on them - and they can be punished for not doing so. This is unrealistic and increases the cost of business.
Cyber Terrorism - the clause reads 'whoever threatens to commit any offence.' This section carries an imprisonment term of fourteen years. While the commission of an offence must be punishable, anything can be construed as a threat. This section also requires a proviso for ethical hacking/white-hat hackers, hobbyists who conduct activities to identify security breaches in systems. It must also protect teenagers from getting implicated as cyber terrorists and jailed for fourteen years, for something they may have done out of boredom - which needs to be reprimanded and dealt with differently.
Natural Dignity of a Person: Offenses against the modesty of a natural person and minor. Cyber Stalking, allow complaints to be made directly to the PTA. Open-ended language can easily be misused by the complainants or the Authority. The interpretation of the clauses is not subjected to a judicial process; no already developed jurisprudence would be relied on. An official of the authority would have absolute discretion.