Amnesty’s statement shows a different side of the Pegasus case. Here’s what you missed
Till now, most of the media reports have been extremely aggressive in reporting about the Pegasus issue, blaming it either on the country, the organisation or the individual who is using this spyware for surveillance purposes. But a human rights organisation called Amnesty has released a statement which changes a lot of things that were being assumed till now.
The Human Rights organisation confirmed that it has never stated that a recently leaked list of phone numbers was the specific list that was targeted by the NSO Group’s Pegasus Spyware. Amnesty was blamed for using Pegasus for secretive information while the organisation claimed that all of it was dedicated to human rights purposes.
One of the journalists working for the organisation Kim Jetter said that the list only provided a list of numbers that was only indicative of the clients showing interest.
This is a list of numbers marked as numbers of interest to NSO customers, meaning they are the kind of people NSO clients might like to spy on.Amnesty
The list which was released a few days ago only suggests the kind of people NSO’s clients are most likely to spy on. There is no confirmation on who has done what or what was the motive of the company as the list is merely a suggestion.
The actual truth might have hidden behind the speculative media reports which held little to no value. Pegasus is essentially a spyware software designed for surveillance purposes and most countries use to identify threats and in the case of Amnesty, it is used to obtain a list of potential clients. But the media was quick to jump the guns and reach a conclusion blaming the human rights organisation.
The claims made regarding the issue including over 50,000 numbers prove that the reports are only an opinion with no possible facts to support it. The assumptions have created fear among people who are getting suspicious of reputed companies and organisations after the media boiling their names in the matter.
Amnesty now suggests taking a legal route against whoever started the fake narrative against the spyware and linked it to disrespectful insights concerning the organization. Before blindly believing in these reports, it is necessary to identify the sources and authenticity of the claims.
Many organisations have suffered irreparable damage due to their names on the list and hence before any conclusions, it becomes necessary to identify the route cause of the issue. Such cyber attacks have a tendency to be difficult while tracing back. Professional teams and ethical hacking committees are formed for such purposes but in this case, it was few media reports and social media posts that did all the damage. The lack of following a set process proves that the list, which is viciously being circulated on social media, has no credibility.