• user03-ExamPen
• Blog

Unaccountable Big Brother —

(Dawn Editorial, September 13, 2025)

Introduction

The editorial Unaccountable Big Brother, authored by Usama Khilji and published in Dawn on September 13, 2025, presents a critical reflection on Pakistan’s rapidly expanding surveillance regime. It highlights how unchecked monitoring practices, weak data protection, and lack of accountability pose grave threats to constitutional rights, democracy, and the national economy. The piece draws attention to the fact that surveillance, when carried out without judicial oversight or parliamentary scrutiny, becomes a tool of authoritarian control rather than a mechanism of security. The author situates the issue in the broader context of repeated data breaches, widespread internet throttling, and the absence of robust legal safeguards, making the case for urgent reforms to protect both fundamental freedoms and digital economic growth.

Surveillance and Privacy in Pakistan

Pakistan’s surveillance infrastructure has grown both in sophistication and scale. The Lawful Intercept Management System (LIMS) enables mass interception of mobile calls and messages, while the Web Monitoring System (WMS 2.0) employs deep packet inspection technology to block, filter, and even throttle internet traffic. These systems are often developed in partnership with foreign vendors, raising serious concerns about sovereignty and transparency. While these technologies are justified under the banner of national security, they have, in practice, become mechanisms of mass control, with little evidence of targeted use against specific threats.

Legally, the Constitution of Pakistan provides clear guarantees of privacy under Article 14, which secures the dignity of the individual and the privacy of the home. Any surveillance carried out without lawful authority is a violation of this article. The Investigation for Fair Trial Act, 2013 (IFTA) was introduced precisely to balance security needs with fundamental rights, by allowing targeted interception only through judicially approved warrants. However, in practice, the surveillance that takes place in Pakistan is indiscriminate, bulk in nature, and beyond the scope envisaged by IFTA. Courts have consistently underscored the importance of privacy. The Supreme Court, in the landmark Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto case (1998), affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, while the Islamabad High Court in 2024 ruled against mass phone tapping, declaring it unlawful. These precedents emphasize that the surveillance state must operate within constitutional boundaries.

Governance Failures

Despite these legal safeguards, Pakistan’s governance of surveillance remains deeply flawed. There is no independent regulatory body that monitors surveillance practices, leaving intelligence agencies to operate in secrecy with little or no parliamentary oversight. This lack of accountability creates an environment where mass interception becomes normalized and unchallenged.

In addition, Pakistan has suffered repeated data breaches, from leaks of SIM card information to the exposure of NADRA databases. Citizens’ personal information is frequently commodified and sold illegally, yet those responsible enjoy near-total impunity. The absence of breach notification laws means that victims are rarely informed or compensated, which further undermines trust in the state’s ability to protect sensitive information.

The digital economy has also been negatively affected by internet disruptions and throttling. Reports suggest that deliberate slowing of internet speeds reduced national connectivity by up to 30–40 percent. This not only harmed businesses and freelancers but also created uncertainty in the IT export sector. Firewalls and arbitrary blocking of websites restrict the free flow of information, damaging both education and innovation. In this sense, internet throttling functions as a hidden tax on productivity, one that the economy can ill afford.

Implications of Unaccountable Surveillance

The implications of such unregulated surveillance are manifold. Constitutionally, mass monitoring represents a direct violation of fundamental rights, especially the rights to privacy, dignity, and freedom of expression. It erodes the authority of courts and undermines the rule of law, replacing due process with arbitrary state control.

Politically, surveillance creates a chilling effect, where citizens, journalists, and activists refrain from exercising free speech out of fear that they are being monitored. This weakens democratic culture and strengthens authoritarian tendencies, as people censor themselves rather than risk persecution. Economically, the damage is equally significant. A country that throttles internet speeds and allows sensitive data to leak cannot hope to attract sustained foreign investment or develop into a global hub for digital exports. The consequences are not only loss of revenue but also diminished credibility in international markets. Socially, surveillance fosters fear, mistrust, and alienation between citizens and the state, further eroding the social contract.

Critical Assessment

The strength of the editorial lies in its grounding in constitutional law and judicial precedents. By invoking both Article 14 and important case law, it connects present concerns to established principles of justice and dignity. Its emphasis on the chilling effect and economic costs makes the argument broader and more persuasive, as it appeals not only to lawyers and activists but also to business leaders and policymakers.

However, one limitation of the piece is that it pays relatively little attention to the security rationale often presented by the state. While Khilji is right to stress oversight and accountability, his argument could have been strengthened by acknowledging the genuine security challenges Pakistan faces and then demonstrating how unchecked surveillance fails even on those terms. Moreover, the editorial does not delve deeply into the role of specific institutions, such as the military and intelligence agencies, which are key actors in the surveillance architecture. Addressing these aspects would have given the argument greater depth and realism.

Reform Proposals

To remedy these failings, comprehensive reforms are needed. Legally, the scope of the Investigation for Fair Trial Act, 2013 must be clarified to explicitly prohibit bulk interception and mandate necessity and proportionality in all surveillance orders. Judicial warrants must become the rule rather than the exception, and unlawful interception should carry strict penalties.

Institutionally, Pakistan requires the establishment of an independent Surveillance Commissioner or Parliamentary Committee on Surveillance, equipped with the authority to audit, review, and publish annual reports on interception practices. A fully empowered Data Protection Authority must also be created to safeguard citizens’ information and enforce penalties for breaches.

On the technical front, laws must mandate encryption of sensitive data, introduce breach notification requirements, and ban deliberate throttling of internet services. Transparency in procurement of surveillance tools is essential, with contracts made public and subject to human rights audits. Internationally, Pakistan must align its privacy regime with global norms such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), while also demanding accountability from foreign vendors that supply surveillance equipment without due diligence.

Vocabulary Table (CSS-Oriented)

CSS-Style Questions

1. Essay: “Surveillance vs. privacy: Critically analyze Pakistan’s monitoring systems in light of Article 14 and judicial precedent.”
2. Policy Analysis: Draft a legislative framework for independent surveillance oversight in Pakistan.
3. Case Law: Discuss judicial rulings on phone-tapping and their relevance today.
4. Short Note: Examine how internet throttling undermines economic growth.
5. Comparative: Contrast Pakistan’s Investigation for Fair Trial Act 2013 with global surveillance laws.
6. Governance: Propose reforms for preventing and responding to data breaches in public institutions.
7. Technology & Rights: Explain deep packet inspection (DPI) and its human-rights implications.
8. Critical Review: Is mass surveillance ever justifiable in democratic states? Discuss with reference to proportionality tests.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Unaccountable Big Brother is a powerful reminder of how unchecked surveillance undermines democracy, law, and development. It demonstrates that privacy is not a luxury but a constitutional right linked to dignity, freedom, and trust in the state. While security remains an undeniable concern, the absence of oversight transforms surveillance from a protective tool into an instrument of repression. For Pakistan to progress as a democratic and technologically competitive nation, it must ensure that surveillance is lawful, targeted, transparent, and accountable. Only then can the country strike a balance between security and freedom, and safeguard the digital future of its citizens.