dw.com
Serbian Intelligence Accused of Hacking Journalists' Phones with Spyware
Amnesty International accuses Serbian intelligence services of using Israeli Cellebrite spyware and a new domestic program, NoviSpy, to hack the phones of at least 13 journalists and activists, copying data and sending it to a BIA server; the incident followed interrogations, raising concerns about freedom of press and human rights.
- What is the impact of the alleged spyware use by Serbian intelligence services on freedom of the press and human rights in Serbia?
- Amnesty International alleges that Serbian intelligence services used spyware, including Cellebrite's software and a domestically developed program called NoviSpy, to hack at least 13 journalists' and activists' phones. The spyware copied contacts, took screenshots, and sent private photos to a server controlled by the Serbian intelligence agency (BIA).
- How was the spyware obtained by Serbian authorities, and what role did international organizations play in the acquisition and potential misuse?
- The spyware's use followed interrogations by Serbian police or security services, suggesting a pattern of surveillance against critics. This raises concerns about freedom of the press and human rights in Serbia, particularly given the BIA's dismissive response and Cellebrite's investigation into potential contract violations.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this incident for the regulation of spyware technology and the oversight of international aid programs?
- The incident highlights the potential for misuse of commercially available spyware, even when ostensibly intended for combating organized crime. Future implications include increased scrutiny of such technology transfers and a potential reassessment of international aid programs involving such sensitive technologies, as Norway's government is already expressing concerns.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction emphasize the allegations of spyware use against journalists and activists, immediately setting a critical tone. While this is justified given the nature of the accusations, it's important to note that this framing might shape reader perception before presenting other viewpoints. The inclusion of the Serbian government's response later in the article attempts to balance the framing, but the initial emphasis remains.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual, reporting on the findings of Amnesty International. However, terms like "invasive spyware" and "spying virus" carry inherent negative connotations. While these are accurate descriptions, more neutral alternatives like "surveillance software" or "monitoring software" could potentially reduce the emotionally charged nature of the reporting.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses heavily on the allegations and findings of Amnesty International, but it could benefit from including perspectives from the Serbian government beyond their brief statement dismissing the report as "trivial sensationalism." The report also omits details about the specific mechanisms UNOPS implemented to prevent software misuse. More information on these measures would strengthen the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The report doesn't present a false dichotomy, as it acknowledges the complexity of the situation and presents multiple perspectives. However, the framing of the Serbian government's response as simply dismissing the report might oversimplify their potential defense or explanations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The report by Amnesty International alleges that Serbian intelligence services used spyware to monitor journalists and activists, violating their privacy and freedom of expression. This undermines the rule of law, due process, and fair trial rights, all crucial aspects of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The use of spyware also creates an environment of fear and intimidation, hindering civic engagement and the ability of journalists to hold power accountable.