hu.euronews.com
Serbia Accused of Misusing Cellebrite Surveillance Software to Spy on Activists
Amnesty International accuses Serbia of using Cellebrite surveillance software to secretly monitor activists and a journalist, copying their contact lists and uploading data to a government server following interviews with Serbian police and security officials, raising concerns about human rights and the misuse of technology provided as part of an EU integration aid package.
- What are the long-term implications of this incident for Serbia's human rights record and its progress toward EU integration?
- This incident highlights concerns about the misuse of surveillance technology, particularly in the context of EU integration efforts. The involvement of UNOPS, a UN agency, raises questions about oversight and accountability in providing such technology. Future investigations should focus on the broader implications of such practices for human rights and democratic processes.
- What specific actions were taken by the Serbian government or its agencies to surveil activists and a journalist using the Cellebrite software?
- Amnesty International's report reveals that two surveillance programs secretly captured screenshots from mobile devices, copied contact lists, and uploaded data to a government-controlled server in Serbia. Activists and a journalist reported suspicious activity on their phones after interviews with Serbian police and security officials. One activist stated that contacts were exported immediately following meetings with intelligence.
- How did the involvement of the UNOPS and the Norwegian government in providing the Cellebrite technology to Serbia contribute to this situation?
- The programs, possibly using Cellebrite technology, targeted activists and a journalist, suggesting a potential pattern of surveillance against those critical of the government. The timing of data exports directly after meetings with intelligence agencies implies intentional targeting. The Serbian government, however, has not commented on these allegations.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction emphasize the allegations of surveillance against activists and journalists, potentially shaping the reader's perception before presenting the full context of the Cellebrite software's use. The report does eventually mention the software's legitimate uses in law enforcement, but this is presented after the initial framing of the accusations.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual. However, words like "suspicious activity" and "secretly" could be considered slightly loaded, potentially influencing reader perception. More neutral terms like "unusual activity" and "without public knowledge" could be used instead.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses heavily on the actions of the Serbian authorities and the Cellebrite software, but lacks detailed information on the specific types of data accessed, the scale of surveillance, and the impact on individuals beyond the mentioned activists and journalist. Further investigation into the scope of surveillance and the nature of the data collected is needed for a more complete picture. The lack of comment from Serbian authorities also limits the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The narrative presents a somewhat simplified dichotomy between the use of the software for crime-fighting and its potential misuse for surveillance of activists and journalists. The report acknowledges that Cellebrite products are widely used by law enforcement, but the complexities of balancing security needs with human rights concerns are not fully explored.
Sustainable Development Goals
The report reveals that Serbian authorities, potentially with support from UNOPS and despite a temporary halt by Norway, used surveillance technology to secretly collect data from activists and journalists' phones. This undermines privacy, freedom of expression, and due process, violating fundamental human rights crucial for peace, justice, and strong institutions. The lack of transparency and accountability from Serbian authorities and initial lack of decisive action from UNOPS further exacerbates the negative impact.