euronews.com
Serbia Accused of Using Spyware to Surveil Activists and Journalists
Amnesty International reported that Serbian police and intelligence used Cellebrite and a new spyware, NoviSpy, to hack the phones of activists and journalists, illegally accessing their data, raising concerns about state control and repression amidst anti-government protests.
- What are the long-term implications of this surveillance on freedom of expression, democratic processes, and Serbia's EU accession efforts?
- This incident highlights the potential for misuse of commercially available spyware and the need for stricter regulations and oversight. Future implications include increased self-censorship by journalists and activists, chilling effects on freedom of expression, and further erosion of democratic norms in Serbia. The Serbian government's close ties with Russia and China may be influencing its approach to internal security and surveillance technologies.
- What specific digital tools and tactics did Serbian authorities use to illegally surveil activists and journalists, and what immediate consequences resulted?
- Amnesty International's report reveals that Serbian authorities used Cellebrite spyware and domestically developed NoviSpy to hack phones of activists and journalists, illegally surveilling them. The spyware allowed access to photos, contact lists, and other data, which was then uploaded to a government server. This occurred during detentions and questioning by police.
- How does the timing and context of this surveillance relate to recent anti-government protests and the Serbian government's relationship with Russia and China?
- The use of these technologies is connected to a broader pattern of state control and repression against civil society in Serbia. The actions target journalists and activists, suggesting an attempt to suppress dissent and criticism of the government, especially amidst recent anti-government protests. The Serbian intelligence agency, BIA, denied the allegations, stating adherence to Serbian law.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and opening paragraphs immediately establish the Serbian government's actions as problematic. While factual, this framing sets a negative tone and may predispose the reader to view the government unfavorably. The repeated emphasis on "illegal surveillance" reinforces this negative framing. The inclusion of the government's response is present but positioned after the critical findings, potentially diminishing its impact.
Language Bias
The report uses strong language such as "illegal surveillance," "digital repression," and "highly invasive technologies." While accurate reflections of the findings, these terms carry a negative connotation and could be partially mitigated by using more neutral terms like "surveillance practices," "digital monitoring," and "advanced technologies" in some instances. The consistent use of "hack" also implies malicious intent.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses on the actions of Serbian authorities and the spyware used, but doesn't delve into potential motivations of other actors or broader geopolitical influences on Serbia's surveillance practices. The report also omits details about the legal framework governing surveillance in Serbia, making it difficult to fully assess the legality of the actions described. While acknowledging space constraints, this lack of context limits the analysis of the situation's overall complexity.
False Dichotomy
The report presents a clear dichotomy between the Serbian government's claims of legal compliance and Amnesty International's findings of illegal surveillance. While this contrast is important, it could benefit from acknowledging the potential for legal ambiguities or differing interpretations of the law.
Sustainable Development Goals
The report details the use of spyware by Serbian authorities to surveil activists and journalists, undermining freedom of expression and the right to privacy, which are crucial for a just and accountable society. The actions of the Serbian authorities are directly contrary to principles of justice and the rule of law.