A Panopticon Society?

Surveillance in Pakistan raises concerns over privacy, free speech, and transparency.

Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century designed an ingenious model for a prison. It was designed so that a single guard could observe, from the watchtower in the centre, every inmate in their cells, at all times. While the inmates could observe the tower itself, they could not place from where exactly they were being observed. This model is a metaphor for the contemporary surveillance of societies. Michel Foucault, a French scholar in 1975, used the Panopticon model to argue that it induces a state of being watched all the time, (sic) “a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.” Today, the Panopticon model sounds uncanny familiarity for someone living in Pakistan, where a populace in the “periphery” is under heightened surveillance from the “centre”. Is it, indeed, a corrective and protective measure in Pakistan’s case? And if so, what effects have been produced?

Recently, a minister informed the National Assembly of the “Web Monitoring System” (WMS) being used by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) for surveilling and blocking websites, applications, and VPN traffic. Despite ambiguous and contradicting statements from PTA and other authorities regarding installation of a “firewall” system for cybersecurity, the reality that surveillance has tremendously increased cannot be ignored. Digital rights’ experts blame this system for internet shutdowns, though PTA has denied installation of any firewall. While a petition has been filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the firewall installation, (similar cases in Sindh and Lahore High Courts), the government is yet to satiate angry demands of the public for transparency regarding surveillance systems. Ban on social media platform X, which has for months disenabled a mode of popular communication in Pakistan, is also in the backdrop of much-heated debates regarding digital rights.

The IHC has previously criticised the legality of (and banned) the “Lawful Intercept Management System” (LIMS), used by “designated” agencies to surveil the audio and video data; messages, and web browsing history of around 4 million users through telecom companies.

The government has justified, albeit unconvincingly, the need for these measures to filter out Islamophobic content, pornography, and propaganda. Legal cover has been given to the surveillance of Pakistani citizens under Section 54/1 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Act 1996, by issuing of a Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) notification by the government in July. There was heavy opposition to this move by the IHC, questioning how the Ministry of Interior could permit agencies of surveillance without a warrant (which can be issued under the Fair Trial Act, 2013). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in a hearing on August 19th, suspended previous IHC orders (29th May and 25th June) that had challenged the legality of this surveillance.

“The opacity of the Pakistani authorities regarding the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies that block content, slow down, and control internet speeds is an alarming concern...” stated a technologist at Amnesty International on August 26th. Activists have highlighted a list of human rights violations, including freedom of expression, restriction of access to information and erosion of privacy rights. Infringing on citizen’s communication capacities (largely based on social media) is, understandably, causing frustration. A major chunk of the population is dependent on uninterrupted internet to earn a living in this difficult economy, especially freelancers who use currently unavailable platforms like Fiver.

The ethical dilemma that the government faces is a classical “trolley problem.” The state appears to have pushed the lever for the greater good of the majority but with a cost of erosion of privacy, personal freedom, right of free speech and communication. The decision taken needs to be explained plausibly and timely to the public. The bigger picture of this ethical dilemma needs to be effectively evaluated.

The ambiguous stance of authorities leaves citizens in a state of obscurity -- a breeding ground for public anxiety. While some defend it as a security measure, noting precedents of various countries that use firewalls to surveil digital activity and block “propaganda”, the question of its ethicality is valid. The alleged political motivations surrounding the topic of firewall make it even harder to justify. Even as a Bentham-style corrective measure, the state of Pakistan should rethink its approach, or at least present a homogenous front and transparency regarding the issue in order to walk the tightrope of balancing between freedom and security.

The writer is an analyst on societal affairs. She tweets @ fatimaraza_