When cell phone signals vanish, life comes to a halt for many. Such has been the dependency on cellular networks these days. Pakistanis remember frequent network outages that happened in 2012-13, a period of growing violence in the country. Hardly a month would go by without a day of signals dropping dead.
Now less frequent, cellular shutdowns date back to 2005. The state still exercises its authority whenever it finds it fit on religious occasions or political gatherings. The cellular and Internet shutdown during the March 23 parade in Islamabad earlier this year was the latest manifestation of the phenomenon.
Recently, a case study prepared by Institute for Human Rights and Business (United Kingdom), in partnership with Bytes for All (Islamabad) and Center for Internet and Human Rights (Berlin), put together a counter perspective. One of their researchers was embedded in Telenor Pakistans headquarters for a few days in March 2015, in order to understand the process and consequences of such shutdowns.
The report, titled "Security v Access: The Impact of Mobile Network Shutdowns," builds an argument that such shutdowns - which critics see as one of the main tools used by the state to manage difficult days in public life - infringe on the populations freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights. That is a testament to how central communication technologies have become in everyday lives.
Even beyond that, shutdowns are a harmful thing, the report noted. The effects of outages are that people cannot communicate with their friends and families. They cannot contact for help in emergency situations. Small-scale businesses that depend on cellular/data connectivity are temporarily locked out of their supplier and consumer markets. Internet outages affect students that are deeply dependent on online learning resources. Electronic commerce and mobile banking get the hit as well.
"ICTs can be used by both citizens and terrorists, but shutting down communication networks is a blunt instrument that deprives law enforcement of the opportunity to use communications for the purpose of fighting terrorism, and to disseminate important information to move people to safety, or to calm a concerned population," the report countered.
The argument above has merit. But those in favour of shutdowns, especially law enforcement officials, would beg to differ. They have long maintained that terrorists and miscreants use communication technologies, such as cellular and data services and over-the-top apps, to both facilitate and execute their nefarious designs. Therefore, service shutdowns are a necessary cost in order to avoid security incidents, whose casualties have historically ranged in this country from a few dozens to over hundred per incident.
A middle ground would seem like a better way out here. Thats where some of the reports recommendations can come in really handy. It asks the government to narrow the scope of shutdowns, be more transparent about the rationale behind them, and institute oversight mechanisms. If the government cannot avoid the practice, it must take certain steps such as ensuring continued reach to emergency services and compensating operators for the losses.
To the companies, the report recommends building a coalition with their customers and broader civil society to keep a check on the government. Companies may also compensate users for any losses or grievances caused during service outages. The shutdowns have grown less frequent, but it seems they will be around for some time. So, its advisable for both government and operators to minimize the harmful impacts of it on citizens.
Comments
Comments are closed.