People’s Party termed the law “an attempt to curb citizens’ freedom of speech rather than protect them.”53 The government’s efforts to coerce corporations into providing user data also continue. In July 2017, Facebook refused a request by Pakistani authorities to link all user accounts with mobile numbers. Concerning this request, the PTA said that “mobile numbers are verified through biometric verification system in the country. The issue of fake accounts could be overcome if all existing accounts are verified with phone numbers.” Given the history of political victimisation, the mere idea of linking users’ Facebook activity with their identity and biometric data poses serious concerns. There is a draft of a potentially enabling law: a new right-to-information legislation at the federal level. The law, if enacted in the form that is being advocated by civil society, will enable access to government and state documents through digital formats. Since information is directly connected to expression, the enactment of a strong right-to-information law at the federal level may widen the space for online expression as well. Another possibility of positive intervention in this regard is the fact that Pakistan has signed on to the Open Government Partnership (OGP). As a part of the national action plan that is being created to move towards the goals of openness and transparency, the Ministry of IT has signed on to a commitment to table a consultative draft of data protection legislation in the parliament. The draft IT policy also includes a commitment to introduce data protection legislation for the “protection of personal data and online privacy for improved transparency and security of sensitive and confidential information.” Data protection legislation, again, can have an enabling impact on online expression. Finally, the implementation process of PECA gives rise to various concerns about the sincerity of the government. It has been more than a year since the law was passed and notified and yet there are questions about how exactly it is being implemented. Media reports point towards the creation of cells within the PTA and FIA to monitor and censor online content, but there is no transparency about the composition of these cells or the process followed to enact them. Multiple right-to-information requests to the PTA have gone unanswered. A set of interviews conducted by MMfD54 also showed a discrepancy in the perspectives being given by the Ministry of IT, which prepared and tabled the law, and the FIA, the key investigating agency implementing the law. For instance, when asked about the role of intelligence agencies in real-time surveillance, an invasive and extreme tactic allowed under the cybercrime bill that can have a direct impact on the environment for online expression, the representative from the Ministry continued to hold that the intelligence agencies have no role and the FIA would be leading the implementation. However, interviewees from the FIA itself minimised their own role in this operation and held that the intelligence agencies are largely taking the lead in surveillance-related aspects of the law. Previously, media reports also claimed that “Rules being formed under the newly-passed legislation called the Prevention of Electronic Crime Act (PECA), 2016 will empower many agencies to crack down on individuals misusing the internet, social media, in particular.”55 These contradictions and the lack of transparency have not gone unnoticed. On 8 August 2017, the Sindh High Court, during the hearing of a constitutional petition against a crackdown on bloggers, “directed the interior ministry and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to file a detailed report on cybercrime laws.”56 In July 2017, Senator Farhatullah Babar, a member of the Senate’s standing committee on human rights, raised the issue on the floor of the Senate and inquired about a report57 on the implementation of the bill that was due to be submitted six months after the law was enacted. Six months after this question was raised, the Federal Minister of Interior finally responded, giving his assurance that the said report would be filed within the week. However, at the time of writing, no report had been filed by the Ministry. This continued secrecy over the procedures and processes through which this law is being implemented remains a threat to the practice of freedom of expression online. 53 Guramani, N. (2017, 19 July). Senators term Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 a “black law”. Dawn.com. https://www.dawn. com/news/1346310 54 The interviews are yet to be published and will appear on MMfD’s digital rights website: digitalrightsmonitor.pk 55 Gishkori, Z. (2016, 20 October). Op. cit. 56 Siddiqui, T. (2017, 8 August). SHC asks Interior Ministry, FIA to file report on cyber crime laws. Dawn.com. https://www.dawn.com/ news/1350224 57 Ahmad, Z. (2017, 20 July). Op. cit. Summary and conclusion The cases discussed above demonstrate an increase in the government’s tendency towards criminalisation of online expression. The cybercrime law, PECA 2016, is one of the key indicators of the government’s approach towards online expression, 116 / Unshackling Expression