Despite the constant denials and silence of senior officials of the Government of Iván Duque, the mother company of ‘Pegasus’the espionage software, confirmed that this administration did buy this dangerous cyber tool.
They even deceived NSO Group, owner of Pegasus. They deceived the state of Israel, they deceived Colombian justice and they deceived Colombia.
To persecute youth leaders and to listen to legitimate and private meetings of the opposition, the government committed crimes.…
— Gustavo Petro (@petrogustavo) October 24, 2024
In September 2024, the president Gustavo Petro revealed that the government of Ivan Duque I had purchased this software irregular in 2021, causing a wave of concerns about the use of these tools in the country.
The accusations and complaints did not stop there. Petro stated that senior executives of the Israeli company NSO Groupcreator of Pegasus, traveled to Colombia to close the agreement and transport million dollars in cash.
With the confirmation of the purchase by NSO Group, the scandal has reached new dimensions.
What is Pegasus?, the spyware that causes this storm
Pegasus allows remote access to mobile phones, without their owners realizing, and has been accused of spying on journalists, activists and politicians in other countries.
Many of these spies provided security agencies, both state and clandestine, with information that helped coordinate operations involving kidnappings, torture, murders, and disappearances of opponents.
To know more about this software see: PEGASUS: the Spyware used to hack cell phones that has the world scared
How did such powerful and controversial software end up in the hands of the Colombian government?
According to Petro, the agreement with NSO Group included payments of up to 11 million dollarsdivided into two transactions. Although the government Duque has denied the purchasethe company NSO confirmed that all transactions were carried out within the law.
The accusations suggest that payments were made in casha practice that has been questioned for possible violation of Colombian laws against money laundering. Furthermore, it has been revealed that Israeli private jets They landed in Bogotá to transport the money.
The lack of transparency about who handled the software or for what purposes has generated a crisis of trust. The opposition has compared the case to the illegal practices of the former DASwhich has deepened concern about the possible use of Pegasus to illegally intercept communications in Colombia.
#Attention Prosecutor’s Office: “There was a payment of more than 5 million dollars to the company that owns Pegasus software”
— BluRadio Colombia (@BluRadioCo) October 24, 2024
Ver: Colombia is expelled from the Egmont Group after the Pegasus scandal
Why are Colombians so worried about this spyware?
It is not a legitimate surveillance tool acquired through the security channels and protocols of the Colombian authorities and security agencies, but rather the complaint is made due to the irregularities and lies surrounding its purchase.
These questions generate uncertainty and fear, especially in a country with a history of illegal interceptions. The revelation has revealed a network of possible violations of human rights and privacy of citizens.
This case is far from closed, and with authorities investigating, the truth could be even more shocking.
Ver: Pegasus: Dipol denies purchase and use of Israeli spy software
Upon learning of the Pegasus purchase, the country can question the use of technological tools of this type, ensuring that they conform to global legal and ethical frameworks.
You may be interested in our other articles:
Sources of “Iván Duque did buy the Pegasus spyware”
Images Pixabay | EFE |
2024-10-24 19:16:00
#Iván #Duque #buy #Pegasus #spyware
Interview with Technology Analyst, Dr. Laura Montoya, on the Pegasus Spyware Controversy in Colombia
Editor: Thank you for joining us, Dr. Montoya. With the recent confirmation that the Colombian government under Iván Duque purchased the Pegasus spyware, what are the key implications of this revelation?
Dr. Montoya: Thank you for having me. The implications are significant. First and foremost, this raises serious concerns about privacy and civil liberties in Colombia. The use of such invasive spyware typically targets journalists, activists, and political opponents. This could represent a dangerous precedent for governmental overreach and abuse of power.
Editor: Exactly. President Gustavo Petro accused Duque’s administration of using this software to surveil opposition leaders. How does this relate to broader concerns about governmental transparency and accountability?
Dr. Montoya: This situation highlights a troubling lack of transparency and accountability within the government. The accusations suggest that funds were transferred in a non-transparent manner, potentially violating both national and international laws. When a government engages in clandestine dealings to acquire surveillance technology, it fuels distrust among citizens and raises alarms about potential human rights violations.
Editor: The NSO Group, which produces Pegasus, has faced international scrutiny for its role in alleged human rights abuses. What can we learn from this situation about the responsibilities of such technology companies?
Dr. Montoya: NSO Group’s example underscores the ethical responsibilities of technology companies in the digital age. They must ensure their products are not misused for oppressive purposes. There’s a pressing need for greater oversight and regulation in the spyware industry, particularly to protect activists and journalists who often find themselves targeted.
Editor: what steps should the Colombian government take in light of this situation to rebuild trust with its citizens?
Dr. Montoya: The government must prioritize transparency by disclosing details about the purchase and usage of Pegasus. An independent investigation into the matter would go a long way in showing commitment to accountability. Additionally, there should be an urgent discussion about setting up regulations concerning surveillance technologies to protect the rights of individuals.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Montoya, for your insightful analysis. The implications of this spyware scandal will undoubtedly shape the future of privacy and governance in Colombia.
Editor: Thank you for joining us, Dr. Montoya. With the recent confirmation that the Colombian government under Iván Duque purchased the Pegasus spyware, what are the key implications of this revelation?
Dr. Montoya: Thank you for having me. The implications are significant. First and foremost, this raises serious concerns about privacy and civil liberties in Colombia. The use of such invasive spyware typically targets journalists, activists, and political opponents. This could represent a dangerous precedent for governmental overreach and abuse of power.
Editor: Exactly. President Gustavo Petro accused Duque’s administration of using this software to surveil opposition leaders. How does this relate to broader concerns about governmental transparency and accountability?
Dr. Montoya: This situation highlights a troubling lack of transparency and accountability within the government. The accusations suggest that funds were transferred in a non-transparent manner, potentially violating both national and international laws. When a government engages in clandestine dealings to acquire surveillance technology, it fuels distrust among citizens and raises alarms about potential human rights violations.
Editor: The report also indicates that there were allegations of cash transactions and involvement of private jets from Israel. What does this suggest about the nature of these dealings?
Dr. Montoya: The use of cash transactions can often be linked to attempts to circumvent regulations and justify questionable practices. When you add international dimensions, such as private jets being used, it suggests a level of sophistication and perhaps even a network of collusion that raises serious ethical and legal concerns. It shows that this was not just a simple procurement process but rather a calculated operation that may undermine Colombia’s legal frameworks.
Editor: Many Colombians are understandably worried about the implications for democracy and human rights. How do you see this affecting public trust in governance?
Dr. Montoya: The revelation that the government acquired such a controversial tool without proper oversight is likely to diminish public trust significantly. Citizens expect their government to operate with integrity and respect for human rights, especially in a nation where historical abuses remain fresh in people’s memories. This incident may lead to a greater demand for accountability and stronger safeguards against the misuse of technology by state actors.
Editor: Lastly, what steps should be taken going forward to ensure that similar incidents don’t happen again?
Dr. Montoya: It’s imperative that there be a thorough investigation into this matter, ideally independent of government influence. Additionally, Colombia should establish stringent regulations governing the acquisition and use of surveillance technology. Ensuring complete transparency in governmental dealings and involving civil society in discussions about technology use are crucial for rebuilding trust and protecting civil liberties.
Editor: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Montoya. The implications of this controversy will undoubtedly shape discussions around governance and civil rights in Colombia for some time to come.
