Paragon, another Israeli player in the spyware industry, presents itself as an “ethical” surveillance vendor. Yet it now finds itself in an impossible moral crisis due to the ethicality of its contract with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). At that point, in September 2024, the company entered into a one-year contract for $2 million. The contract is still pending final approval and has not gone into effect yet. By choosing to work with ICE, Paragon raises questions about its commitment to good government. This concern is further compounded by the recent controversies involving the organization.
Paragon was under increased public scrutiny following an abuse report on August 8th. Italian authorities reportedly abused its surveillance tools to hack into the phones of two critical journalists. In response to this occurrence, Paragon took a controversial step. This last action denied Italy access to their products and made the company the first corrupt spyware manufacturer to publicly name a customer for abuse. This action suggests that Paragon is attempting to distance itself from unethical practices, reinforcing its self-portrayal as a vendor focused on responsible governmental partnerships.
Despite signing the contract with ICE, Paragon has yet to deliver any spyware tools to the agency’s Homeland Security Investigations division. In truth, the contract has been on ice since its inception. Now, whether Paragon will provide its technology for deployment in the U.S. remains up in the air. The federal government can ratify the compact at any time before it’s set to expire on September 29, 2025. This places Paragon in a powerful position to influence the substantial decisions at stake.
As political analyst John Fleming noted, these contracts are important because… He noted that they usually include a narrow set of global democracies, often limited to United States and its closest allies. This raises some serious ethical implications for firms like Paragon. They need to be careful when entering contracts with public agencies that are well known for their legacy of predatory behavior.
Opponents of the ICE contract have expressed alarm at the potential ramifications of Paragon’s technology being deployed by the agency. Michael De Dora, a human rights advocate, warned, “Given this administration’s record of attacks on human rights and civil society organizations, we hope that Paragon would reconsider the agreement.” This short statement highlights the clash between national security imperatives and human rights obligations.
With the September deadline approaching fast, Paragon’s top brass are under increasing pressure from community stakeholders to act. Pivotal’s choice about whether to deliver surveillance tools to ICE might have a big impact on the company’s brand reputation. It would undermine its own self-declared ethical high ground. The company’s moves so far suggest just such a judicious path forward, navigating between lucrative new business opportunities and an evident sense of morality.