The PML-N-led coalition government at the Center now has 229 members in the NA. PHOTO: APPLICATION
ISLAMABAD:
The government defended the country’s web surveillance system in the National Assembly on Thursday, saying it aimed to regulate illegal content online and did not infringe on citizens’ privacy, while lawmakers raised concerns over surveillance, legality and the role of private telecom operators.
Responding to further questions during Question Hour, the Parliamentary Secretary for IT said the web monitoring system had been in place since 2007 and had undergone periodic upgrades, including a complete overhaul in 2019.
She said the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) was responsible for monitoring internet traffic and ensuring compliance with laws governing online content.
“It is not correct to say that the government or the PTA have no role in this system,” she said, adding that the Authority continuously monitors and blocks illegal or blasphemous content.
She stressed that no public funds were used for the system, describing it as a mechanism focused on tracking data traffic rather than intruding on individuals’ privacy.
The secretary also said international platforms were regulated by formal agreements, including memorandums of understanding with companies such as TikTok and Meta, while access to some services may be restricted for security reasons.
Referring to social media platform X, she said it was not blocked by the PTA but on instructions from the Interior Ministry for security reasons.
Previously, lawmakers had questioned the transparency and legal framework underpinning the system, particularly its reliance on infrastructure purchased by private telecom operators.
MP Sharmila Faruqui said the official response suggested the surveillance system was acquired by private operators without government funding or PTA involvement in procurement, raising questions about authority and accountability.
“If private telecom operators carry out controls at the national level, who authorized them and who monitors them?” she asked.
She argued that the lack of direct government ownership or financial involvement raised concerns about oversight and accountability, warning that such an arrangement could expose citizens to unchecked surveillance.
Another lawmaker, Noor Alam Khan, echoed these concerns and questioned the system’s financial model.
He said if private operators had installed and maintained the infrastructure, the cost would ultimately be borne by consumers. “Are these private operators charities or do they recover costs from the public? he asked.
Khan also raised constitutional concerns, asking whether the system could violate Article 14, which guarantees individuals’ rights to privacy and dignity.
He argued that surveillance functions should fall entirely within the domain of the state to prevent misuse by private entities.
Additionally, he requested clarification on the legal basis for restricting access to X, questioning whether such decisions were made within a defined legal framework or through administrative directives.
