The new Rules undermine the citizens’ right to privacy and enhance the state’s surveillance powers.
It is important that internet laws and policies be democratic, transparent, consultative and informed.
Can we not utilise these very apps to put forward the messages we want to encourage?
The intent is to keep people away from political discourse.
The agenda seems to be to discredit the press.
Companies are more likely to invest here if there are no threats of measures to block apps and websites.
It is important to explore the strengths of the bill as well as address its shortcomings.
Transparency is essential in the government’s methods.
The only type of regulation that makes sense for internet-based content is self-regulation.
The University of Balochistan case is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg of privacy violations in Pakistan.
Perhaps technology can empower citizens to hold the law-enforcement system accountable.
If surveillance is to be carried out, there should at least be safeguards against abuse.
The obsession with capturing every moment through phones acts as a saviour.
Efforts to control what citizens can say sound ideal in an Orwellian dystopia, but not in a democratic state.
The draft law contains some welcome steps to protect personal information.
Are citizens expected to blindly peddle state propaganda and not question state excesses?
Tech companies have begun to cede to requests for censorship.
It is time for tough decisions to establish the writ of the state.
Voting is a right, not a privilege.
Social media is far more democratic than other forms of media.