It's amazing how vitriolic the anti-AL stuff is rolling on and on in the YouTube without any censor or fear. It's clearly a Digital Security Act free zone. New sites spring up every day and there are new postings. Several stations are birthed most weeks and together they form the propaganda counter to the AL on social and even mainstream media.

But most of the AL opposition media of the virulent variety are located outside the country and so the Digital Security Act can't be used against any of them. This opposition social media is expatriate driven and manned from the West. What we thus have are two parallel streams in popular media, one over and one underground. And given the political model we have running, this is not about to go away soon.

But the rise of alternative media raises several more questions on cyber security and the use of DSA. Had any of the persons concerned with such broadcasts been living in Bangladesh, they would have seen police action and the rest. As that is not the case, this is bound to increase and cause more tension too.

Cyber security

The biggest concern is about the ability of the Government to police and control these channels. For example, anticipatory bails given by the High Court become confirmed as permanent bail in the lower court in most cases.

But another person who was accused of distorting the image of the PM was given the same type of bail by the High court but when he surrendered to the lower court, his bail was cancelled and he was put in jail. Obviously, the nature of the offense determines the treatment.

While such distinctions can be made within the Bangladesh physical territory, it can't be applied in the digital space. Because of location and space, the expat anti-AL media can operate without fear of action though it's obvious that most if not all people will find it impossible to return to Bangladesh unless there is a regime change.

Be that it be, the idea that Digital Security Act can protect people, at least politically from such stuff will be proven wrong if it's limited by territory and can't prevent open access. In that case, it will seem very limited in operation and scope. That situation basically questions the justification of passing the DSA. It may become even less effective if people start turning to YouTube as regularly as national media. The purpose of having a media under DSA will be rather negated.

In fact, if one goes by the latest two agitations under which many arrests have/had been made under the ICT Act - the uploading was done from Dhaka. But now suppose the same material is sent abroad which is then downloaded from there, what can the DSA offer to prevent and punish?

Dhaka based uploading is going to happen less and less as the legal arm is clearly long enough. The arrest of two persons from Uttara one of whom was a JI activist shows that. But this will not be applicable in case of external broadcasts.

Is filtering the next step?

This means the Government will have to try to screen materials that can be accessed from Bangladesh. That may be what was called "filtering" by the ICT Minister once. Given the seriousness of the Government to screen digital propaganda, its certain, we shall see efforts in this sector though not sure how useful. Or else the DSA will not serve the political part of the purpose, its main intent.

As long as the internet remains, the challenge to ensure politically safe coming from abroad will be there. The Sinha episode is a good example. After his book was published, it made noise everywhere. Although he was heavily trashed in Bangladesh by the Government and its supporters, no one could prevent the circulation of the book through digital paths. Hence the purpose if any of preventing the book from reaching public hands was largely lost.

But Sinha is talking about his situation and politics including the PM and many are listening. Sinha has been giving interviews to Bangladeshi channels located in the West on every issue possible. Clearly, he has been venting and through YouTube these channels are reaching everywhere. The result is a voice that can't be shut by the DSA and as he speaks without any fear and can say whatever he wants. What he has said in his book or saying now could never have been heard or read in Bangladesh media. But now anyone can if they wish and that challenges if not disables the DSA motive.

Given this situation, perhaps the question itself is about censoring and cyber security in an age where the pre-digital concepts of control are still considered valid. Perhaps a rethink of what are cyber security and censorship needs to be redefined when the DSA appears to be a rather limited document in terms of achieving its purpose.