Responding to the release of NSO Group’s transparency report, Danna Ingleton, Deputy Director of Amnesty Tech, said:
“NSO Group’s latest report – which reads more like a sales brochure - is yet another missed opportunity for the company to be transparent and provide meaningful information about the human rights impacts of its products.
“The company has evaded accountability while scores of activists and journalists around the world have been put under unlawful surveillance using its technology.
“Crucially NSO Group ignores the issue of remediation for victims and fails to disclose all the legal challenges the company has faced resulting from the misuse of its technology. This is a serious omission that leaves investors in the dark about the legal risks they may face.
NSO Group’s latest report – which reads more like a sales brochure - is yet another missed opportunity
Danna Ingleton, Amnesty Tech
“NSO Group must immediately ensure transparency with regard to sales and contracts, as well as conduct and publicly disclose robust human rights due diligence for all proposed transfers of surveillance technology.
“States must also implement a moratorium on the sale and transfer of surveillance equipment until a proper human rights regulatory framework is put in place.”
Background
NSO Group released its “Transparency Statement of Principles” report on 30 June 2021. Transparency reports by companies should provide a measure of transparency and accountability to individuals or groups who may be impacted by activities of companies.
In 2019, how two prominent activists, Maati Monjib and Abdessadak El Bouchattaoui, had been targeted using NSO spyware. A year later, we uncovered how the Moroccan government was continuing to use NSO Group technology to spy on the journalist Omar Radi. how NSO spyware was sent to an Amnesty International staff member in 2018. Amnesty brought a legal case against the notorious group a year later, which was rejected by the Israeli government.
In May 2021, Amnesty International released its report, which showed how the lack of transparency about the company’s operations posed a serious obstacle for victims of unlawful surveillance to seek accountability and the right to remedy.