PML-N-led coalition government in the Centre now has 229 members in the NA. PHOTO: APP
ISLAMABAD:
The government on Thursday defended the country’s web monitoring system in the National Assembly, asserting that it was aimed at regulating unlawful online content and did not infringe upon citizens’ privacy, while lawmakers raised concerns over oversight, legality and the role of private telecom operators.
Responding to supplementary questions during the 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 comprehensive overhaul in 2019.
She clarified that 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 PTA has no role in this system,” she said, adding that the Authority continuously monitors and blocks unlawful or blasphemous content.
She emphasized that no public funds had been used for the system, describing it as a mechanism focused on tracking data traffic rather than intruding into individual privacy.
The secretary also said that international platforms were regulated through formal agreements, including memorandums of understanding with companies such as TikTok and Meta, while access to certain services could be restricted on security grounds.
Referring to the social media platform X, she said it had not been blocked by PTA but on the instructions of the Interior Ministry due to security considerations.
Earlier, lawmakers questioned the transparency and legal framework underpinning the system, particularly its reported reliance on infrastructure procured by private telecom operators.
MNA Sharmila Faruqui said the official response suggested that the monitoring system was procured by private operators without government funding or PTA involvement in procurement, raising questions about authority and accountability.
“If private telecom operators are carrying out monitoring at a national level, who authorized them, and who is monitoring them?” she asked.
She argued that the absence of direct government ownership or financial involvement raised concerns about oversight and responsibility, warning that such an arrangement could leave citizens exposed to unchecked surveillance.
Another lawmaker, Noor Alam Khan, echoed these concerns and questioned the financial model of the system.
He said that if private operators had installed and maintained the infrastructure, the cost would ultimately be borne by consumers. “Are these private operators charitable organizations, or are they recovering costs from the public?” he asked.
Khan also raised constitutional concerns, asking whether the system could violate Article 14, which guarantees the right to privacy and dignity of individuals.
He argued that monitoring functions should fall squarely within the state’s domain to prevent misuse by private entities.
Additionally, he sought clarification on the legal basis for restricting access to X, questioning whether such decisions were being made within a defined legal framework or through administrative directives.
