The government on Thursday defended the country’s web monitoring system in the National Assembly, stressing that it aims to regulate illegal online content and does not violate citizens’ privacy, while lawmakers raised concerns about censorship, legality and the role of private telecom operators.
ISLAMABAD (UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News – 2 April, 2026) The government on Thursday defended the country’s web monitoring system in the National Assembly, stressing that it aims to regulate illegal online content and does not violate citizens’ privacy, while lawmakers raised concerns about censorship, legality and the role of private telecom operators.
In response to supplementary questions during Question Hour, Parliamentary Secretary for Information Technology Sabine Ghauri said the web monitoring system has been in place since 2007 and has undergone periodic updates, including an overhaul in 2019.
She explained that Pakistan The Telecommunications 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,” she said, adding that the authority constantly monitors and blocks illegal or blasphemous content.
She stressed that no public funds were used for the system, and described it as a mechanism that focuses on tracking data movement rather than interfering with individual privacy.
Ghauri also said that international platforms are regulated through formal agreements, including memorandums of understanding with companies like TikTok and Meta, while access to certain services can be restricted for security reasons.
Referring to the social media platform
Earlier, lawmakers questioned the transparency and legal framework underpinning the system, especially its stated reliance on infrastructure purchased by private telecommunications companies.
MNA Sharmila Faruqui said the official response indicated that the monitoring system was purchased by private operators without government funding or PTA involvement in the procurement, raising questions about authority and accountability.
“If private telecom operators are carrying out surveillance at the national level, who authorized them and who monitors them?” I asked.
The absence of direct government ownership or financial involvement raises concerns about oversight and liability, she said, warning that such an arrangement could leave citizens vulnerable to unchecked surveillance.
Another lawmaker, Noor Alam Khan, echoed these concerns and questioned the regime’s financial model.
If private operators install and maintain the infrastructure, the cost will ultimately be borne by consumers, he said. “Are these private entities charitable organizations, or do they recover 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 said surveillance functions should fall squarely within the purview of the state to prevent misuse by private entities.
In addition, he requested clarification on the legal basis for restricting access to X, asking whether such decisions are made within a specific legal framework or through administrative directives.