What NSO Group says in their "Transparency report" on #Pegasus:
> Fact: Data is collected only from individual, pre-identified suspected criminals and terrorists.
What #OCCRP investigation actually demonstrated is a dozen of *journalists,* not "criminals" or "terrorists", being spied on, for example in Hungary 🇭🇺
@fuxoft Just read their Transparency report. What they say there is completely inconsistent with the cases highlighted by OCCRP. Which you should also read, because clearly "blackmailing" and "collecting dirt" by a law enforcement agency has little to do with criminal investigation.
I am just objecting to your statement that if someone is a journalist, he cannot possibly be criminal and terrorist. Those are not mutually exclusive.
There was no such statement in my post 🤷 I was speaking about very specific, named journalists who have been spied on and blackmailed with no terrorist or criminal accusations raised against them ever.
Didn't you write "journalists, not criminals or terrorists"? Why is the word "journalists" there?
"A dozen of journalists". These people were never charged with any criminal or terrorist offences.
Again, you seem to be using the fact that they were journalists and that they were not charged as a proof that they were NOT "suspected criminals and terrorists". Note the word "suspected". I see no contradiction at all and no link between those facts.
The context is pretty clear from the OCCR publications - Panyi for example started getting under surveillance after he started investigating money laundering by Hungarian politicians.
Surely, this might have been just a coincidence and he might have at the same been planning a terror attack 😉
Well, I certainly WANT to live in a society where a person looking for Hungarian money launderers IS being watched as potential terrorists until it becomes apparent that he/she is not a terrorist. Whether that person is also a journalist is irrelevant.
@kravietz Only if you equate "person looking for Hungarian money launderers" (which I wrote) with "everyone" (which I didn't write). However, since you ask, I wouldn't mind if everyone was under surveillance (yes, including my family and me) but that's not technically doable nor socially acceptable. Yet. So when there's a choice of who is to be surveilled, I prefer those looking for Hungarian money launderers.
The idea of rule of law that our civilisation is based on assumes that nobody is guilty unless independent court determines so, and surveillance is only allowed if there's a reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. Yours is more of a Soviet one.
Přečtěte si více informací o tomto serveru