Serbia’s secret service and police have been accused of deploying spyware to monitor journalists and opposition activists, according to Amnesty International’s scathing report released on Monday. The report, entitled “A Digital Prison: Surveillance and the Suppression of Civil Society in Serbia,” is based on testimonies from individuals who allege their phones were hacked.
Details within the report reveal sinister tactics used by Serbian authorities to undermine civil liberties. Specifically, the police and the Security Information Agency (BIA) purportedly installed spyware on mobile devices during detentions to enable unauthorized access to personal data. The software allegedly captured covert screenshots and copied contact lists, which were then sent to servers controlled by the government.
Dinushika Dissanayake, Amnesty International’s deputy regional director for Europe, emphasized the severity of these allegations, stating, “Our investigation reveals how Serbian authorities have deployed surveillance technology and digital repression tactics as instruments of wider state control and repression directed against civil society.”
The revelations come at a time of significant unrest within Serbia. Following the tragic collapse of a railway station canopy on November 1, which resulted in the deaths of 15 people, citizens have mobilized calling for accountability from government officials, including President Aleksandar Vucic. Students and opposition activists have led protests demanding investigations not only of the incident but also of pervasive corruption and negligence among state officials.
Many perceive these protests as reflective of growing public dissatisfaction with Vucic's increasingly autocratic rule, sparking accusations from the president against foreign intelligence and NGOs, which he claims are conducting “hybrid warfare” against his government.
Despite these accusations, Serbian authorities have been quick to discredit the findings of the Amnesty report. A statement from the police claimed the report is “absolutely incorrect,” acknowledging only the existence of the forensic tool for investigations, which they assert is utilized similarly by police forces globally.
The BIA added to the contention by insisting they operate strictly according to Serbian law, claiming they cannot engage with what they referred to as “nonsensical allegations” from Amnesty International.
Igor Bandovic, director of the Belgrade Center for Security Policy, condemned the use of invasive spyware by the authorities, stating, “This is the evidence...have been using invasive spyware practically on everyone who thinks differently from the government.” His organization has called for immediate investigations to hold accountable those responsible for this misuse of technology.
Protests escalated amid claims of governmental malpractice, and Amnesty's findings have prompted broader discussions about civil freedoms within Serbia. According to Bandovic, such surveillance tactics represent direct attacks on fundamental rights, including the freedoms of assembly, expression, and association.
Adding another layer to the contentious circumstances, the allegations surfaced alongside news of Serbia's official ties with Russia and China, where similar surveillance methods are reportedly employed. These relationships, coupled with the domestic pressures of increasing dissent, place Serbia at a crossroads as it continues its bid for European Union membership.
The report's findings raise questions about international complicity, particularly relating to the tools of suppression made available to the Serbian authorities. The Israeli company Cellebrite, known for developing products utilized by law enforcement worldwide, has come under scrutiny following claims their technology played a role. David Gee, marketing director at Cellebrite, issued statements acknowledging their awareness of the allegations and noted, “If these allegations are proven to be true, this could constitute a violation of the End User License Agreement.”
The growing outcry has not gone unnoticed by international figures. Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister Maria Varteresian stated the accusations are “worrying” and pledged to engage with Serbian officials to gather more information, underscoring the need for transparency and possibly triggering inquiries by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).
While the Serbian government stands its ground, rejecting the claims made by Amnesty and asserting routine law enforcement practices, the silent cries for justice from citizens and activists grow louder.
These events reveal not only the challenges faced by those seeking civil rights and accountability within Serbia but also highlight the potential for broader repercussions on its aspirations for EU membership and international legitimacy.
It is evident Serbia remains engulfed within this web of intrigue, surveillance, and public disenchantment, raising pertinent questions about the future of democracy and human rights within the nation.
