The last decade has seen an unprecedented spread of state surveillance tools, from military-grade spyware to ubiquitous biometric databases and AI-powered cameras. Governments argue these technologies are necessary for public safety, counter-terrorism and efficient public service delivery. But their rapid adoption, often without robust legal safeguards or public debate, has significant implications for privacy, freedom of expression and democratic oversight in countries like Pakistan. Recent global developments make it urgent to examine where Pakistan stands, what its laws permit, and how citizens’ rights might be protected as surveillance technologies proliferate.
You May Like to Read: The ‘Digital Colonization’ Threat: The Geopolitical Implications of Foreign Tech Giants Controlling Pakistan’s Digital Space
New Precedents that Change the Game
High-profile legal and investigative outcomes abroad have reshaped the international debate. In 2025 a U.S. federal jury ordered NSO Group, the maker of Pegasus spyware implicated in mass surveillance of journalists and activists, to pay a record sum for illegal hacking of WhatsApp users, a decision analysts say could chill the unregulated sale of mercenary spyware and create new legal accountability for private surveillance vendors. This ruling has immediate relevance for countries procuring such tools and for civil society pushing for oversight.
At the same time, international human rights monitors continue to warn that states are using digital technologies to stifle dissent and control populations. Recent global reviews by major rights organisations catalog how new surveillance practices have been linked to restrictions on speech, judicial independence and the safety of journalists and activists. These findings underline that technology alone does not explain the problem, it is the combination of powerful tools with weak checks that creates risk.
How Technology Reaches States, and What it Does
The spread of surveillance capabilities owes much to commercial markets and geopolitical flows. Firms developing facial recognition, bulk-data analytics, and intrusion tools sell to states directly or through intermediaries; some exports are associated with countries that have integrated surveillance into social governance models. Independent investigations have shown how camera networks and analytics have been deployed for social control in places where political dissent is tightly policed, offering a cautionary example for export-dependent procurement choices elsewhere. These commercial and geopolitical dynamics mean that any country can gain access to surveillance capabilities faster than it can build legal or institutional safeguards.
Pakistan’s Legal, and Institutional Landscape
Pakistan already has pieces of the legal architecture that touch on surveillance. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) has been a focal point for debate since its passage in 2016; critics argue that broad criminal provisions and expansive enforcement powers risk being used against legitimate speech and journalism if procedural safeguards are not strengthened. Recent legislative activity and proposed amendments have sharpened these concerns among media groups and rights defenders, who warn about possible overreach in the name of cyber security.
You May Like to Read: The Debate Over Cybercrime Laws in 2025 | Cybercrime and Digital Rights
On the data protection front, the government moved forward with a draft Personal Data Protection Bill in 2023 which, according to recent legal practice guides, completed consultation stages but had not been fully enacted into law as of early 2025. If passed in a rights-respecting form, a comprehensive data protection law could provide important guardrails, defining lawful grounds for data processing, setting limits on retention and requiring transparency for automated profiling. The draft’s alignment with international models shows willingness to regulate data, but timely and public parliamentary scrutiny will determine whether those protections are effective in practice.
NADRA’s expanded biometric systems and moves toward mobile biometric authentication for services demonstrate how identity systems can improve service delivery and fraud prevention. However, when biometric and civil-registration databases grow without parallel rights frameworks, they become attractive targets for misuse and raise questions about consent, data minimisation and independent oversight. Recent NADRA updates highlight the technical progress, but they also make the governance gap more visible if legal protections lag behind.
The Costs for Civil Liberties, and How to Respond
Unchecked surveillance chills free expression, narrows civic space and concentrates power in executive hands. For Pakistan, the risk is not that technology itself is inherently hostile, but that tools built for legitimate policing can be repurposed against political opponents, reporters or ordinary citizens when court oversight, transparent procurement and independent complaint mechanisms are weak. International practice suggests three practical priorities: enact clear data-protection and surveillance-use laws; ensure independent judicial authorisation for intrusive surveillance; and publish procurement and oversight reports so citizens can hold institutions to account. These measures protect both security needs and fundamental rights.
You May Like to Read: Pakistan’s Cybersecurity Challenge: Protecting National Infrastructure in a Digital Age
Conclusion
Surveillance technology will not disappear. Pakistan, like other states, can benefit from digital tools that improve governance and safety, but that benefit is conditional on law, transparency and institutions that prevent abuse. The global legal precedents and human-rights findings of recent years make clear that accountability matters: when surveillance is unaccountable, rights suffer. Pakistan’s path forward should therefore combine the technical advantages of digital governance with strong legal safeguards, public debate and independent oversight to ensure that security does not come at the cost of liberty.
You May Like To Read: India–China Relations: A Strategic Reset Amid Global Tensions
