Security isn't about geography but
policy and enforcement. Implementing
robust data protection laws would achieve better security outcomes.
I see a lot of issues with this VPN Registration practices. First of all, PTA has not outlined
why it needs access to citizens' browsing history or what it intends to do with this data. Will this data only be used for national security purposes, or could it extend to monitoring dissent, activism, or whistleblowing? Without safeguards, law enforcement agencies could use the data for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity, such as:
- Targeting political activists or journalists.
- Suppressing dissenting opinions or free speech.
Countries with strong
data protection regulations have established principles for handling user data:
- Purpose limitation: Data can only be used for specific, well-defined purposes.
- Transparency: Citizens must know what data is collected, why, and how it will be used.
- Consent and accountability: Data collection should require informed consent, and authorities must be accountable for misuse.
Pakistan lacks comprehensive
data protection laws, leaving citizens with limited recourse if their data is abused.
If data is improperly secured, it could be accessed by hackers, putting sensitive personal information at risk. VPNs are primarily used by individuals to enhance
privacy and
security, especially in countries with weak protections for digital rights.
I've also researched on this VPN registration and found following countries follow this practice, but for varied purposes:
- Censorship enforcement (China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia)
- Revenue protection (UAE, Oman)
- National security and monitoring (India, Pakistan, Iran)
Many of these countries that implement strict VPN regulations or mandatory registration have a history of limiting citizens' freedoms, particularly in terms of
freedom of speech, privacy, and access to information. These measures are used as tools for enhancing governmental control rather than genuinely addressing security concerns.
VPNs are widely used in repressive regimes, like Pakistan, to bypass censorship and organize political movements. Restricting them ensures governments can maintain control over public discourse.
In contrast, many
democracies with strong commitments to individual freedoms and privacy, such as
Canada,
Germany, and
Sweden, do not impose restrictions on VPN usage. Instead, these countries:
- Encourage the use of VPNs for enhancing privacy and cybersecurity.
- Focus on addressing illegal activities through targeted investigations rather than blanket restrictions.
- Uphold digital rights as part of broader commitments to human rights and freedom of expression.
Another problem I see is PTA demanding VPN providers to set up their data centers in Pakistan. Well, Pakistan suffers from
energy crises and frequent power outages, whichis going to disrupt the operations of data centers. Reliable data center infrastructure requires uninterrupted power supply, cooling systems, and fail-safe mechanisms—resources that are not consistently available in Pakistan. The country’s internet backbone is not robust, with inconsistent speeds and frequent outages, making it difficult to maintain high-performance data centers. Physical and cybersecurity risks are heightened due to weak enforcement of safety protocols, leading to concerns about data breaches and unauthorized access. Pakistan’s weak
regulatory framework and
judicial independence create fears about the misuse of sensitive data stored in local data centers.
This demand by the
Pakistani Military establishment for IT companies and VPN providers to establish
data centers within Pakistan indeed reflects a dated approach to technology policy. In today’s fast-paced, cloud-driven digital world, such demands highlight a
lack of understanding of modern infrastructure practices and
global business models. IT industry has moved from
localized infrastructure (on-premises data centers) to
cloud-based services, which offer scalability, reliability, and cost efficiency. Companies now use global cloud providers like
AWS,
Google Cloud, and
Microsoft Azure, which operate large-scale data centers optimized for modern demands. Demanding local data centers ignores the fact that even Pakistani businesses and government agencies rely on these
global providers for robust service delivery.
Global cloud providers adhere to stringent security protocols and certifications far superior to what local infrastructure can often achieve. Local data centers might expose data to
local vulnerabilities like weak cybersecurity measures, corruption, or unauthorized government access. Policymakers in GHQ rooted in the 1990s mindset may not fully understand the cloud's potential and global IT ecosystem. They may still view physical control over infrastructure as essential, ignoring the rise of
virtualized, distributed systems. Instead of embracing
collaboration with global cloud providers, these policies alienate them, reducing the influx of FDI and technological expertise.
