Carding Forum
Professional
- Messages
- 2,788
- Reaction score
- 1,175
- Points
- 113
Why cyber espionage in the EU is flourishing, despite all the tools to combat it.
The European Union has a powerful tool for combating human rights violations related to commercial spyware, but despite the possibility of regulating the export of dual-use technologies, some countries continue to issue export licenses for the sale of such products under repressive regimes. For example, the Greek government has previously admitted that it issued licenses to Intellexa to sell Predator spyware to the Government of Sudan.
The problem of spyware in Europe manifests itself not only beyond its borders, but also within them. So, it is known for certain that in Greece, Spain, Hungary and Poland — spyware was actually used against opposition groups, which is an alarming phenomenon for democratic states.
To address this issue, the European Parliament has set up a Committee to Investigate the Use of Spyware (PEGA). In one of its reports, the committee called for coordinated action at EU level and better enforcement of existing laws, such as export control regimes. However, the implementation of these recommendations is complicated, as the responsibility for their implementation lies with individual EU member States.
One of the tools not mentioned in the PEGA report is the EU's Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime. Adopted in 2020 and valid until 2026, it provides for financial sanctions and travel restrictions for those involved in serious human rights violations. A similar law exists in the United States called the Magnitsky Act. Seven other countries have also adopted similar measures.
The EU sanctions regime has already been applied to 67 individuals and legal entities, as well as to 20 organizations in different countries. Sanctions apply not only to those responsible for violations, but also to those who support them.
The EU may well adapt this regime to deal with spyware vendors. An example is the Israeli company NSO Group, whose product Pegasus was used for human rights violations. And despite the fact that NSO Group does not use the information received for targeted actions, it can be recognized as "supporting" violators, since it provides technology that contributes to these violations.
Similar sanctions have already been applied by the United States to companies Intellexa and Candiru, also associated with offenses. It is important to note that the American approach includes strict liability, while in Europe the degree of awareness of the company about the misuse of its products remains uncertain.
The situation is also complicated by the fact that the introduction of sanctions requires the unanimity of all EU countries, which can complicate the process, since some countries may be clients of these companies. However, failure to support sanctions against a known violator, such as NSO Group, can lead to public condemnation of the government.
Technological progress requires ethical responsibility. The fight against the misuse of spyware demonstrates the need for a balance between innovation and the protection of human rights, highlighting the importance of international cooperation in creating effective mechanisms to control the spread of potentially dangerous technologies.
Source
The European Union has a powerful tool for combating human rights violations related to commercial spyware, but despite the possibility of regulating the export of dual-use technologies, some countries continue to issue export licenses for the sale of such products under repressive regimes. For example, the Greek government has previously admitted that it issued licenses to Intellexa to sell Predator spyware to the Government of Sudan.
The problem of spyware in Europe manifests itself not only beyond its borders, but also within them. So, it is known for certain that in Greece, Spain, Hungary and Poland — spyware was actually used against opposition groups, which is an alarming phenomenon for democratic states.
To address this issue, the European Parliament has set up a Committee to Investigate the Use of Spyware (PEGA). In one of its reports, the committee called for coordinated action at EU level and better enforcement of existing laws, such as export control regimes. However, the implementation of these recommendations is complicated, as the responsibility for their implementation lies with individual EU member States.
One of the tools not mentioned in the PEGA report is the EU's Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime. Adopted in 2020 and valid until 2026, it provides for financial sanctions and travel restrictions for those involved in serious human rights violations. A similar law exists in the United States called the Magnitsky Act. Seven other countries have also adopted similar measures.
The EU sanctions regime has already been applied to 67 individuals and legal entities, as well as to 20 organizations in different countries. Sanctions apply not only to those responsible for violations, but also to those who support them.
The EU may well adapt this regime to deal with spyware vendors. An example is the Israeli company NSO Group, whose product Pegasus was used for human rights violations. And despite the fact that NSO Group does not use the information received for targeted actions, it can be recognized as "supporting" violators, since it provides technology that contributes to these violations.
Similar sanctions have already been applied by the United States to companies Intellexa and Candiru, also associated with offenses. It is important to note that the American approach includes strict liability, while in Europe the degree of awareness of the company about the misuse of its products remains uncertain.
The situation is also complicated by the fact that the introduction of sanctions requires the unanimity of all EU countries, which can complicate the process, since some countries may be clients of these companies. However, failure to support sanctions against a known violator, such as NSO Group, can lead to public condemnation of the government.
Technological progress requires ethical responsibility. The fight against the misuse of spyware demonstrates the need for a balance between innovation and the protection of human rights, highlighting the importance of international cooperation in creating effective mechanisms to control the spread of potentially dangerous technologies.
Source
