More recently, the proliferation of government spyware has caused alarm among international human rights activists and policymakers alike. Runa Sandvik, world-renowned cybersecurity expert. She curates a full, vivified list of cases that demonstrate the abuse of spyware all around the globe. This alarming trend highlights the increasingly dangerous intersection of technology and civil liberties. Governments of all stripes are taking advantage of these tools to benefit their own political interests.
One prominent example is the use of Paragon spyware to target a homophobic political consultant. This adman had done work for progressive leaders in Italy. This major incident serves as a warning about how government-sanctioned surveillance can sabotage our democratic processes. It brings up serious ethical considerations about how we wield this technology.
Understanding of these realities is growing. Pioneered by the United Kingdom and France, a growing coalition of mostly Western countries has taken strong diplomatic steps to stop the spread of spyware using non-proliferation measures. This coalition recognizes that government spyware represents a significant threat to democracy and is pushing for international standards and regulations.
John Scott-Railton, a cybersecurity researcher with the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, underscores the risks posed by government spyware. But above all, he stresses, it poses an immense danger of misuse for government customers. This new ease of targeting individuals in the public sphere puts people at serious risk. Advanced spyware, such as NSO Group’s Pegasus and Paragon’s Graphite, enables governments to surveil their citizens and opponents without substantial checks.
The United States is going to great lengths to address these issues. They’ve done this to a number of other spyware manufacturers including Cytrox, Intellexa and the NSO Group. The U.S. has already sanctioned these companies. It’s used them to harass them by putting them on economic blocklists to choke off their ability to operate. Executives from spyware companies—including the founder of Intellexa—have themselves been sanctioned as well.
In a significant turn of events earlier this year, Paragon discontinued its affiliation with the Italian government. The firm cited the administration’s failure to investigate reported abuses associated with its spyware. This turned out to be a major factor influencing their decision. This move raises significant questions about accountability in the surveillance industry and the responsibilities of companies that develop these technologies.
Eva Galperin, director of cybersecurity at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who has researched spyware for years. She argues that going after the youngest of minors is the worst kind of impunity. This disturbing pattern is the result of governments’ use of invasive surveillance technologies.
“The fact that we have seen targeting of relatively small fish is particularly concerning because it reflects the relative impunity that the government feels in deploying this exceptionally invasive spyware against opponents.” – Eva Galperin
Galperin does a nice job drilling down on one of the very prevalent misconceptions about the targets of government spyware. She explains why those targets don’t necessarily mean that someone is a major threat. Rather, it can just be the unfortunate field choice made by a random selection process that is blind to anyone.
“I think that there is some misunderstanding at the heart of stories about who gets targeted by this kind of government spyware, which is that if you are targeted, you are Public Enemy Number One.” – Eva Galperin
The global spyware market has reached multibillion-dollar valuations, with numerous companies eager to supply advanced surveillance tools to governments worldwide. This cash cow of an industry depends on demand by countries who value state control more than they value citizen privacy. Countries with otherwise appalling human rights records can have an equally disturbing increase in the amount of spyware targets. Conversely, more democratic countries typically monitor many orders of magnitude fewer people simultaneously.
Now, civil society organizations in Greece and Poland are calling on their governments to be accountable and transparent. They’ve introduced inquiries into the misuse of spyware within their territories. These questions highlight the dire need for regulatory standards that govern the use of surveillance technology.
Despite facing criticism over their practices, spyware makers often defend their technologies by claiming they are intended solely for use against serious criminals and terrorists. They claim their products are only appropriate to use in very few situations. Documentation of dozens of provided examples shows that spyware is used well outside these professed boundaries.
John Scott-Railton emphasizes the need for more stringent regulations on government spyware, arguing that it “needs to be treated like the threat to democracy and elections that it is.” As the debate over the ethical implications of surveillance continues, it remains imperative for governments and tech companies alike to address these concerns responsibly.