Pegasus – by governments throughout the world

The cyber arms industry has always been under widespread scrutiny. Recently, one such software has become the talk. The media is filled with reports and allegations surrounding the nefarious usage of the NSO group’s spyware, Pegasus, by governments throughout the world. Despite the existence of laws that empower such surveillance, the question of infringement of the right to privacy and state intrusion arises. How safe is our information? Are we turning into informants against ourselves?

The government is strategizing a one-way mirror policy. Just as it tries to learn more about us and our lives, it ensures that we learn even less about its own mechanisms. While there is no evidence that the government has been using Pegasus, citizens in the US and UK have witnessed the greatest snooping from the surveillance networks developed by government intelligence agencies. These were eventually exposed by Edward Snowden to the entire world.

Along similar lines, Forbidden Stories and Amnesty International along with 17 foreign media organizations under the Pegasus Project, have revealed names that were identified as targets by the clients of the spyware. It included prominent political parties, lawyers, journalists, and activists. Since the Israel-based company claims that the spyware is only meant for governments, it can be implied that these people were potential targets of governments and military agencies.

While this advanced technology should be utilized to its maximum potential, more so when it comes to national security, there are no clear boundaries to set apart the national advantage and civil invasion.
In today’s heavily digitalized world, our data is being stored, used, and sold by platforms like Google, Instagram, and Facebook, with our ignorant consent. With the existence of cookies and the supporting platforms’ algorithms, anything you talk about is used for advertisement purposes. However, you at least know that your data is being recorded and you have the option to limit the amount and manage the kind of information being accessed by third parties. This line is blurred when it comes to government surveillance whose essence is secrecy. So, when the right to privacy is ironically violated by the government itself, the target is unaware of such infringement. Consequently, the individual’s right to approach the court is violated. Moreover, there are no limitations to such surveillance. What part of a person’s life comes under the government’s perusal? Where to draw the line?

This calls for the establishment of a regulatory body, independent from the government carrying out the requisite checks and balances to verify the authenticity, objectivity, and extent of the surveillance. The body could examine the profile of the individual, their criminal antecedents, history of any conflict with the government, and other vital information, to justify if the surveillance is in the public interest. Otherwise, such surveillance will ultimately lead to the citizens’ loss of trust over their government and technology. What is the point of democracy, then?

Mushkan Jogani & Trishla
Writer