Different government and media websites, including those of leading newspapers, are attacked quite frequently.13 The use of social media is growing exponentially. Facebook, for example, is one of the most visited websites in the country, attracting more than 10% of the nation’s total internet users. The platform – or different pages within the platform – has been blocked several times in Bangladesh. In 2013 a Facebook report showed that the Bangladeshi government requested the profile information of 12 users.14 A newspaper report suggests that the government asked Facebook on three occasions to remove content from its site.15 Popular video platform YouTube has been blocked repeatedly in recent times. First it was blocked in March 2009 after a recording of a meeting between the prime minister and army officers was published on the site. The block was lifted several days later. YouTube was blocked again in September 2012 following a controversial video clip on Islam – the block was later lifted in June 2013. Although the reason given for the latter block was that the post hurt religious sentiment, many believe that the actual purpose was to exert more control over online content and behaviour. What was more worrying was the perspective of a Bangladeshi court which expressed the desire to find ways of facilitating future blocks of websites and pages.16 The court ordered the shutdown of five Facebook pages and a website for content deemed blasphemous towards Islam, while demanding that content hosts and creators be brought to justice for “uploading indecent material.” Hurting religious sentiment is increasingly becoming a major issue when it comes to surveillance. Authorities seem to be ill prepared, both at the policy and implementation level, to define the issue properly. In October 2012, in the southeastern district of Ramu, temples in Buddhist neighbourhoods were attacked and vandalised following an allegation that the Facebook profile of a Buddhist showed an anti-Islamic image, inciting local Mus- lims to retaliate.17 Similarly, in another incident in November 2013, vandals attacked Hindu houses and properties claiming that a local Hindu boy had uploaded something derogatory towards Islam on his Facebook profile, although this was later denied by the person in question.18 Social media played an important role in mobilising tens of thousands of people who gathered at Shahbagh Square in Dhaka in February 2013. This was in protest against a light court sentence given to Abdul Qader Mollah, an alleged war criminal of the 1971 liberation war. Social, cultural and pro-independence political forces later joined and strengthened the non-violent demonstration, causing some observers to compare it to the 2011 protests in Egypt’s Tahrir Square. But, in response, Mollah’s supporters rallied against what they called a conspiracy by “atheist bloggers”. On 15 February 2013 armed assailants followed, attacked and killed a blogger, one of the organisers of the Shahbagh demonstration, outside of his home.19 This shows how people see security threats as linked to online activism, and how surveillance and monitoring are also happening between citizens. Many argue that the government uses security as an excuse to tame dissenting voices, and Section 57 of the ICT Amendment Act of 2013 gives enough power to the government to arrest and confine anyone without a warrant. Online activists are already finding themselves in an uncomfortable zone regarding the ICT Act amendment, and the ways in which it allows surveillance of communications. In one instance, a professor at a public university was sentenced to a six-month jail term by a court for failing to appear in court (due to the fact that he was in Australia at the time) to stand trial regarding his Facebook statement against the prime minister.20 In another incident, a college student was arrested after posting some “derogatory comments” about the prime minister and her late father, Bangladesh’s founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. These incidents and the government response created heated debate, both online and offline.21 13 Freedom House. (2013). Op. cit. 14 Reuters. (2013, August 28). Bangladesh sought data on 12 users: Facebook. bdnews24.com. bdnews24.com/ bangladesh/2013/08/28/bangladesh-sought-data-on-12-usersfacebook 15 Daily Star. (2014, April 13). Govt asks Facebook to remove 3 contents, www.thedailystar.net/govt-asks-facebook-to-remove-3contents-19979 16 Rezwan. (2012, March 24). Bangladesh: Court Orders Shutting Down of Facebook Pages for Blasphemous Contents. Global Voices. globalvoicesonline.org/2012/03/24/bangladesh-court-ordersshutting-down-of-facebook-pages-for-blasphemous-contents 17 Freedom House. (2013). Op. cit. 18 Topu, A. H. K. (2013, November 3). Hindus attacked in Pabna. The Daily Star. archive.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/hindus-attackedin-pabna 19 Freedom House. (2013). Op. cit. 20 Samad, S. (2012, January 4). Bangladesh teacher awarded imprisonment for Facebook status. Bangladesh Watchdog. bangladeshwatchdog.blogspot.in/2012/01/bangladesh-teacherawarded-imprisonment.html 21 Ray, A. (2012, February 17). Bangladesh: Government observation of Facebook ignites debate. Global Voices. globalvoicesonline. org/2012/02/17/bangladesh-facebook-under-governmentscanner-ignites-online-debate 72 / Global Information Society Watch