The PML-N-led coalition government at the Center now has 229 members in the AN. PHOTO: APP
ISLAMABAD:
On Thursday, the government defended the country’s web monitoring system in the National Assembly, saying it was aimed at regulating illegal online content and did not infringe on citizens’ privacy, while lawmakers expressed concerns about oversight, legality and the role of private telecommunications operators.
Responding to supplementary questions during Question Hour, the IT Parliamentary Secretary said the web monitoring system had been in place since 2007 and had undergone regular updates, including a comprehensive review in 2019.
He 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 the PTA has no role in this system,” he said, adding that the Authority continuously monitors and blocks illegal or blasphemous content.
He stressed that no public funds had been used for the system and described it as a mechanism focused on tracking data traffic rather than invading individual privacy.
The secretary also said international platforms were regulated through formal agreements, including memoranda of understanding with companies such as TikTok and Meta, while access to certain services could be restricted for security reasons.
Referring to social media platform
Lawmakers previously questioned the transparency and legal framework underpinning the system, particularly its reliance on infrastructure purchased by private telecommunications 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 the procurement, raising questions about authority and accountability.
“If private telecommunications operators carry out controls at the national level, who authorizes them and who controls them?” she asked.
He argued that the absence of direct government ownership or financial participation raised concerns about oversight and accountability, and warned that such an arrangement could leave citizens exposed to unchecked surveillance.
Another lawmaker, Noor Alam Khan, echoed these concerns and questioned the system’s financial model.
He said that if private operators had installed and maintained the infrastructure, the cost would ultimately fall on consumers. “Are these private operators charities or are they recovering costs from the public?” asked.
Khan also raised constitutional concerns, asking whether the system could violate Article 14, which guarantees a person’s right to privacy and dignity.
He argued that monitoring functions should fall squarely within the domain of the State to avoid misuse by private entities.
Furthermore, it 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.
