When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

From Snowden To Pegasus: What Is Espionage In The Digital Age?

Photo of a person looking at lines of code on a laptop

Data spying?

Carl-Johan Karlsson

It was Jane Austen, back in 1816, who wrote that "every man is surrounded by a neighborhood of voluntary spies." That neighborhood is getting quite a bit bigger these days as our digitized lives and economies extract ever-deepening rivers of private data from the daily lives of citizens.

Of course, with that has also come an increasingly fraught debate over what "voluntary" and "spying" actually means in a world where surveillance isn’t only ubiquitous but touted as a key condition for both our private and collective security.

A Danish spy story

A ripe example comes out of Denmark, where Danish police announced last month that Lars Findsen, a former Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) chief, could face up to 12 years in prison for treason over charges of classified information leaks. Only days later, the scandal grew further as Claus Hjort Frederiksen, the country’s defense minister from 2016 until 2019, confirmed that he is facing similar charges, Copenhagen-based daily Politiken reports.

The charges against Frederiksen followed his comments in local media the past two years about a top-secret and longstanding agreement between Denmark and the U.S. over wiretapping and internet surveillance, allowing Washington to use Danish data to spy on European countries and politicians, including former German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

With Danish authorities having made few public statements, the story is still largely shrouded in mystery.

What mostly drew the ire of Danes following the 2020 revelations was the indication that Danish citizens were likely spied on as well in the secret wiretapping deal. Last month, Danish Minister of Justice Nick Hækkerup called the situation paradoxical, as “the secrecy of the intelligence service is part of the foundation that preserves our freedom.”

Photo of former Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) chief \u200bLars Findsen

Former Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) chief Lars Findsen

OSD Deputy Secretary of Defense / Wikimedia Commons

Security v. democracy 

The same tensions also arose earlier this month in Israel, where the government launched an investigation into reports that the police had illegally used the technology firm NSO’s spyware product Pegasus against its citizens without a court order, including a key state witness in the corruption trial of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The investigation, revealed by the Tel Aviv business magazine Calcalist, comes after years of reports that NSO, under licenses from the Israeli Defense Ministry, has sold Pegasus to authoritarian governments that — rather than catching terrorists — have used it to hack the phones of activists and politicians.

One of the freest countries in the world, is now having its own version of the Snowden scandal.

Indeed, ever since Edward Snowden cemented his name in history through the biggest security leak in U.S. history, we continue to be reminded that state surveillance is rarely (never?) limited to a small and well-deserving group of bad guys.

Which begs the question: How do we reclaim our individual right to privacy without compromising our collective security?

As the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing wave of terrorism across Europe had governments rushing to expand surveillance capacities, we were ensured that the maturity of Western democracies made any fears of sinister purposes unwarranted.

It is telling that Denmark, one of the freest and most trusting countries in the world, is now having its own version of the Snowden scandal — a kind of quiet flip side to the rise of authoritarian leaders in the West who are much louder and more open about challenging the principles of democracy.

The limitations of regulation

Many now argue that surveillance policy should include not only a rollback of certain practices, but also strong safeguards against executive overreach and abuse in the future. Professor Lawrence Capello, in his bookNone of Your Damn Business: Privacy in the United States from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age, argues that such legal frameworks won’t be so easy to put into place, in large part because laws always lag behind the technology.

That is of course amplified today as the speed of technological progress is growing exponentially and a vast network of devices have made the capacity to surveil a precondition for our techno-centric society to work.

There are never guarantees that intelligence services abide by the law.

And even with legal barriers in place, there are never guarantees that intelligence services abide by them. After all, the main issue so far hasn’t been the absence of regulation, but rather a system where optimizing state influence, domestic and foreign, is a priority within the state security apparatus that trumps privacy rights and legal considerations.

As Snowden said in a recent interview with Politiken, in the wake of the Danish spy scandal, if Denmark gives the U.S. access to large amounts of data, it’s unlikely that information unrelated to direct security threats will amicably be handed back to Copenhagen. “It is not about Denmark being an enemy, but about the NSA being part of the American state, which seeks to maximize its power and influence in all corners of the world. So it is also their job to understand Denmark, the Danish government, the hierarchy in your military.”

Still, our fate may ultimately be in the hands of the private sector. Finally, after years of being tone-deaf on public concerns, tech giants like Google and Apple may be waking up to the need for robust privacy barriers in order to retain customers. In January, Google and Boston Consulting Group released a joint study showing that nearly half of consumers in Canada and the U.S. were uncomfortable with sharing their data to receive targeted ads. Meanwhile, a 2020 EU Fundamental Rights Survey study carried out as governments discussed using technology to combat COVID-19 showed that 41% of Europeans don’t want to share any personal data with private companies.

As such, while it’s often been tartly stated that enough people will never get off give up internet services to make a dent in data gathering, it might, in the end, be the citizens themselves who need to get the job done.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


What To Do With The Complainers In Your Life — Advice From A South American Shrink

Argentines love to complain. But when you listen to others who complain, there are options: must we be a sponge to this daily toxicity or should we, politely, block out this act of emotional vandalism?

Photo of two men talking while sitting at a table at a bar un Buenos Aires, with a poster of Maradona on the wall behind them.

Talking in Buenos Aires, Argentina

Martín Reynoso*

BUENOS AIRESArgentina: the land of complainers. Whether sitting in a taxi, entering a shop or attending a family dinner, you won't escape the litany of whingeing over what's wrong with the country, what's not working and above all, what we need!

We're in an uneasy period of political change and economic adjustments, and our anxious hopes for new and better leaders are a perfect context for this venting, purging exercise.

Certain people have a strangely stable, continuous pattern of complaining: like a lifestyle choice. Others do it in particular situations or contexts. But what if we are at the receiving end? I am surprised at how complaints, even as they begin to be uttered and before they are fully formulated, can disarm and turn us into weak-willed accomplices. Do we have an intrinsic need to empathize, or do we agree because we too are dissatisfied with life?

Certainly, agreeing with a moaner may strengthen our social or human bonds, especially if we happen to share ideas or political views. We feel part of something bigger. Often it must seem easier to confront reality, which can be daunting, with this type of "class action" than face it alone.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest