In July 2020, Anas Altikriti found himself in the midst of a high-stakes negotiation to secure the release of a hostage on the Libya-Chad border. While juggling his responsibilities as a hostage negotiator and preparing for a meeting with Jeremy Corbyn, he was blindsided by a cyber intrusion that would change the course of his life. His phone had been hacked using Pegasus, a sophisticated spyware developed by Israel’s NSO Group, a tool notorious for its use by authoritarian regimes to target dissidents and human rights defenders.
Fast forward to 2024, and Altikriti, an Iraqi-born British citizen and outspoken critic of the United Arab Emirates, has taken a significant step by filing a complaint with the Metropolitan Police in London. He is not alone in this endeavor; alongside him are three other U.K.-based human rights advocates whose phones were similarly compromised. This collective action marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle against the misuse of technology for surveillance and oppression.
Leanna Burnard, a lawyer with the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), expressed optimism about the case, stating, “This case has some real legs. The U.K. shouldn’t stand for the hacking of human rights defenders on its own soil.” The complaint, meticulously prepared and supported by extensive documentation, now rests in the hands of the Metropolitan Police, who must decide whether to initiate an investigation.
The implications of this case extend beyond Altikriti and his co-complainants. It raises critical questions about the responsibility of governments to protect their citizens from foreign surveillance and the ethical implications of technology companies like NSO Group. Despite NSO’s claims that it operates within legal frameworks and serves legitimate law enforcement purposes, the reality is starkly different. The U.S. government blacklisted NSO in 2021, citing its role in facilitating human rights abuses through its spyware. Amnesty International has documented numerous instances where NSO’s technology has been used to target journalists, activists, and political opponents.
The U.K. government’s inaction in the face of these revelations has drawn criticism from various quarters. Despite being a target of Pegasus itself, as cybersecurity researchers from Citizen Lab revealed in 2022, the British authorities have yet to take decisive action against NSO. This lack of accountability is alarming, especially given that the hacking incidents involving Altikriti and others occurred on British soil.
Altikriti’s frustrations are palpable. “You think that the U.K. Government, having seen a number of its own citizens and those on its lands being violated in the way that we have evidence now, would do something,” he lamented. “But so far we have seen an absolute non-reaction.” His sentiments resonate with many who feel that the government has a duty to safeguard the privacy and rights of its citizens, particularly those who are actively working to uphold human rights.
The complaint against NSO Group and its affiliates is not just a legal maneuver; it is a call to action for all who value privacy and human rights. The hacking victims, including Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian journalist, and Mohammed Kozbar, a prominent community leader, have all faced similar threats. Their stories highlight a broader pattern of state-sponsored surveillance targeting individuals who dare to challenge oppressive regimes.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the case could set a precedent for how countries address the misuse of surveillance technology. The potential for a landmark ruling could empower other victims of cyber intrusions to seek justice and hold accountable those who facilitate such violations.
In the U.S., NSO Group is embroiled in multiple lawsuits, including one initiated by WhatsApp for hacking the accounts of 1,400 users. The legal landscape is fraught with complexities, as NSO attempts to leverage claims of sovereign immunity, arguing that its actions were conducted on behalf of foreign governments. However, courts have begun to push back against these defenses, signaling a growing recognition of the need for accountability in the realm of digital surveillance.
The ongoing saga of Pegasus serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between security and privacy in our increasingly interconnected world. As technology continues to evolve, so too must our understanding of its implications for human rights. The actions taken by Altikriti and his fellow complainants could pave the way for a more robust framework that protects individuals from the invasive reach of state-sponsored surveillance.
Ultimately, this case is not just about the individuals involved; it is about the fundamental right to privacy and the protection of human rights defenders who risk their lives to speak out against injustice. As Altikriti aptly put it, “We are now talking about a potential world where literally no one can ever claim to enjoy anything called privacy.” The outcome of this complaint could determine whether that world becomes a reality or if the principles of privacy and human rights can still prevail in the face of technological advancements.