Supreme Court-picked panel finds no proof of Pegasus on 29 phones it got | India News
[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said its technical expert committee, after months of forensic scrutiny, could not find Pegasus spyware in the 29 mobile phones of complainants, but detected malware in five of them.
Based on the findings of the technical committee set up by the SC under Justice R V Raveendan to probe the allegations of opposition parties and activists about the government using military-grade spyware for illegal surveillance on its opponents, a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said that, according to the panel, though malware was detected in five, it is not clear whether it is Pegasus.
“On the basis of detailed examination and analysis, it is concluded that five out of 29 phones may have had some infection due to a malware or poor cyber hygiene and the data available is limited to reach a conclusion that such anomaly is due to Pegasus, despite efforts for months using scientific methods,” the bench read out from the report submitted to it in a sealed cover.
Based on the findings of the technical committee set up by the SC under Justice R V Raveendan to probe the allegations of opposition parties and activists about the government using military-grade spyware for illegal surveillance on its opponents, a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli said that, according to the panel, though malware was detected in five, it is not clear whether it is Pegasus.
“On the basis of detailed examination and analysis, it is concluded that five out of 29 phones may have had some infection due to a malware or poor cyber hygiene and the data available is limited to reach a conclusion that such anomaly is due to Pegasus, despite efforts for months using scientific methods,” the bench read out from the report submitted to it in a sealed cover.
The committee said its report contained sensitive technical information which, if made public, could be misused or abused to create new malware and allow unscrupulous elements to steal a march over the security agencies and put national security in jeopardy. It pleaded for keeping the report secret. Some of the persons, who had submitted their devices for scrutiny to the committee, also requested that the report should not be put in the public domain as it contained personal data.
Read Also
Spyware Pegasus used to snoop on ministers, opposition, journalists, businessmen: Report
Spyware Pegasus, which is sold by the NSO Group of Israel, may have been used to conduct surveillance on about 300 Indians, including two serving Cabinet ministers at the Centre, three opposition leaders, a Constitutional authority, government officials, scientists and about 40 journalists,
When solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the SC may examine the supervising judge’s recommendations for any interim arrangement on cybersecurity, the CJI-led bench said, “We will say one sentence — the government did not cooperate with the technical committee on scrutiny of the devices for Pegasus spyware.”
“The government took the same stand before the committee as it had done before the Supreme Court,” the CJI-led bench said. The SG said he was not aware of this but added that it could be because the technical committee may have asked the government about the nature of spyware it is using to track anti-national elements who plan to harm the country.
Justice Raveendran, who supervised the committee also made six recommendations, including for the “enactment of amendment to existing laws and procedures for surveillance, particularly for securing the citizens’ right to privacy”. Other recommendations of the committee include no non-state entity to use spyware; establishment of mechanism for citizens to raise grievances against illegal surveillance; and setting up of a well-equipped independent primary agency to investigate cybersecurity vulnerability.
The allegation, based on the a report by Amnesty International on illegal use of Pegasus, had set off a political storm with civil rights activists joining hands with the opposition to raise allegations of a surveillance state and not letting Parliament function for several days. The matter was taken to the court, where the petitioners pointed to the claim of the NSO Group, manufacturer of Pegasus, of having only government entities as its clients while pressing for a probe.
The government denied the charge but refused to confirm or deny the acquisition of Pegasus. A CJI Ramana-led bench, after several high-wattage hearings, ordered a probe by a technical committee of its choice, brushing aside the reservations of the government, which argued that putting in the public domain details of software used by government agencies to intercept communications between enemies of India and terror organisations would allow them to take preventive measures against surveillance.
Those who, according to Amnesty International, were allegedly surveilled by using Pegasus comprised a motley bunch comprising opposition leaders Rahul Gandhi and a few others, political strategist Prashant Kishor, IT minister Ashwini Vaishnav and some rights activists.
However, only 29 of them submitted their devices after repeated cajoling by the committee which appealed to them through media.
The SC said it would put up a redacted report of the supervising judge giving recommendations for future cybersecurity of the country and protection of citizens’ right to privacy. It said the case would be heard again after four weeks.
The SC, by its October 27, 2021 order, had set up the two committees for probing the Pegasus controversy raised by a bunch of petitioners, including journalist N Ram, SNM Abdi, Editors Guild of India and politician Yashwant Sinha.
The technical expert committee comprising Naveen Chaudhary, Prabaharan P and Anil A Gumaste did the forensic examination of the submitted devices and gave their findings, including whether military-grade Israeli spyware Pegasus was used and by whom for snooping purposes. The oversight committee headed by Justice Raveendran gave a separate report.
[ad_2]
Source link
