Digital Surveillance Threatens Freedom of Expression in Serbia and Beyond
Table of Contents
Amnesty International’s latest report, “Digital Prison,” accuses Serbian authorities of employing both locally developed spyware, NoviSpy, and technology from Israeli firm Cellebrite to illegally target journalists and civil society activists. The report includes testimony from a journalist and activist alleging that Serbian authorities, including the Security Intelligence agency, installed spyware on their devices while they were in custody and during interviews. “Our investigation revealed how the Serbian authorities have used surveillance technology and digital repression tactics as tools of wider state control and repression against civil society,” said Dinusica Dissanajake, Deputy Regional Director for Europe at Amnesty International. She warned that Cellebrite’s mobile forensics products, widely used by law enforcement agencies globally, pose a notable risk to human rights defenders, environmental activists, and those advocating for freedom of expression if not used under strict legal oversight. Amnesty International claims that NoviSpy can steal sensitive personal data and remotely activate a target’s phone microphone and camera.They allege that Cellebrite’s tools are used to unlock a target’s phone, facilitating the installation of spyware and enabling extensive data mining. Cellebrite defended their products, stating that they are “strictly licensed for lawful use, requiring a warrant or consent to assist law enforcement in legally sanctioned investigations after a crime has been committed.” Amnesty International’s report further highlights the escalating state repression and hostile environment for freedom of expression in Serbia, particularly amidst anti-goverment protests. The report accuses authorities of launching smear campaigns against NGOs, media outlets, and journalists, resorting to arrests and trials for those engaged in peaceful demonstrations.
Echoes of Surveillance Concerns in lithuania and Latvia
The revelations about Serbian authorities’ alleged use of spyware echo concerns that emerged in Lithuania in 2012. At that time, the Lithuanian State Security department (VSD) reportedly warned high-ranking officials about Russia’s alleged disinformation campaign targeting President Dalia Grybauskaitė and other high-ranking officials. This led to a subsequent investigation into the leak of sensitive VSD information, resulting in the monitoring of telephone conversations of 17 current and former employees of the BNS news agency. more recently, in Latvia, questions were raised about the possible tracking of journalists’ communications using spy software. This followed reports of “Pegasus” spyware being discovered on the phone of Galina Timchenko, publisher of the Latvia-registered media outlet “Meduza,” and allegations of hacking attempts targeting other journalists in the country. These incidents underscore the growing concern that digital surveillance technologies may be increasingly deployed to silence critical voices and stifle press freedom.Latvian authorities have been tight-lipped about the specific details of wiretapping practices in the country. in response to inquiries regarding the potential surveillance of journalists, the Interior Minister cited the Operational Activity Law, stating that the methods and tactics used in such operations are classified as state secrets.
This response came after concerns were raised about the possible monitoring of journalist communications. The minister clarified that operational activity, which includes measures like wiretapping, is legally permitted for institutions responsible for national security, defense, and public order.These institutions, along with other authorized bodies, can carry out such operations within their designated scope of authority.
This lack of openness about wiretapping practices has fueled debates about privacy and the balance between security and individual rights. the issue gained traction last year when Alvis hermanis, the artistic director of the New Riga Theater, publicly voiced suspicions about his phone conversations being intercepted.
In response to these concerns, the Ministry of the Interior provided information about the legal framework governing the interception of phone calls in Latvia, outlining the specific circumstances under which such actions are permissible.
for the latest updates on Latvia and global events, consider joining our Telegram or Whatsapp channel.
## Archyde Exclusive: digital Surveillance and the Threat to Journalism in Serbia
**Interviewer:** Welcome to Archyde Insights. Today we’re discussing the increasingly alarming trend of digital surveillance targeting journalists. Joining us is Dinusica Dissanajake, Deputy Regional Director for Europe at Amnesty International. Ms. Dissanajake, thank you for being wiht us.
**Dinusica Dissanajake:** It’s a pleasure to be here.
**interviewer:** Amnesty International’s recent report, “Digital Prison,” presents a deeply troubling picture of the Serbian government’s use of spyware to target journalists and activists. Can you elaborate on your findings?
**Dinusica Dissanajake:** Our examination revealed a worrying pattern of the Serbian authorities using surveillance technology and digital repression tactics to silence dissent. They are employing both locally developed spyware, NoviSpy, and tools from Israeli firm Cellebrite to illegally monitor and possibly repress journalists, activists, and civil society groups.
**Interviewer:** The report mentions instances where journalists and activists had spyware installed on their devices while in custody or during interviews. What are the implications of such actions?
**Dinusica Dissanajake:** This is a clear violation of privacy and fundamental freedoms. Imagine having your conversations,messages,and even your camera and microphone remotely accessible to the authorities.This creates an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship, chilling free expression and independent journalism.
**Interviewer:** Amnesty International claims that NoviSpy can steal sensitive data and activate a target’s phone microphone and camera remotely. Can you provide further details on these capabilities?
**Dinusica Dissanajake:** Our research indicates that NoviSpy is a powerful tool capable of accessing a wide range of personal information, including contacts, messages, photos, and browsing history. it can also be used to remotely activate a device’s microphone and camera, effectively turning it into a surveillance tool.
**Interviewer:** What about Cellebrite’s role in this? They claim their products are strictly licensed for lawful use requiring a warrant.
**dinusica Dissanajake:** While Cellebrite insists on lawful use, the reality is that their tools, designed to unlock phones and extract data, can easily be misused. There’s a serious risk that these powerful technologies fall into the wrong hands and are used for repressive purposes, undermining human rights and fundamental freedoms if not deployed under strict legal oversight.
**Interviewer:** The report suggests that this is not just an isolated incident in Serbia.What are your concerns about similar practices emerging in other countries?
**Dinusica Dissanajake:** We’ve observed a worrying global trend of governments increasingly relying on complex spyware to target journalists, activists, and human rights defenders. This erosion of digital privacy and freedom of expression is a threat to democracy itself. We need greater transparency and accountability from governments and tech companies to ensure these technologies are not used for repressive purposes.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Ms. Dissanajake, for shedding light on this vital issue.
This interview is a result of information gathered from the provided web search results [1](https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/16/24322640/serbian-police-novispy-android-spyware-amnesty-international-cellebrite).
