The Knight First Amendment Institute hosted a panel with experts called “Digital Authoritarianism and the Fight for Democracy” this past Wednesday.

On Wednesday, May 7, the Knight First Amendment Institute sponsored the discussion on the rise of digital authoritarianism and the struggles for transparency and our democratic freedoms.   

The Knight Institute works to protect free speech and freedom of the press in the digital age through lawsuits, research, and advocacy. Its goal is to promote open expression, support public debate, and strengthen democratic accountability. This event was moderated by Sheila Coronel, director of the Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism. 

The discussion included Ron Deibert, cybersecurity expert and director of the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, and Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director of the Knight Institute. The discussion was framed around Deibert’s just-released novel, which addresses the growing industry behind spying technology, fake news campaigns, and cyberattacks. 

Coronel opened the conversation with an overview of today’s journalistic landscape, highlighting the rise of espionage and propaganda. She also pointed to a breaking news story describing how a California federal jury ordered the Israel-based spyware vendor NSO Group to pay $167.35 million dollars in punitive damages for facilitating hacks of approximately 1,400 WhatsApp users’ devices. 

With that, Coronel asked the panelists how warfare has evolved through propaganda and espionage, what makes this moment different, and what makes it more dangerous. Deibert replied that governments have long engaged in espionage, but today’s digital environment is especially invasive. He noted, “We live in a digital environment where all of the devices that we use are oriented for the vacuuming of our personal data.” The privatization of intelligence has reached new heights, with surveillance tools once reserved for powerful nations are now available to any government. 

While some justify their use for national security, the question remains on what qualifies as a threat. There is no real defense against spyware, and companies such as Apple and Google have little power to protect users. With these tools in the hands of untrustworthy individuals, human rights abuses are on the rise.

Jaffer highlighted how technology has both empowered and hindered movements for accountability and human rights. “Without technology, they couldn’t do the work,” he said, acknowledging its crucial role in democracy. However, he pointed out the darker side, with tools like spyware and artificial intelligence being used for censorship and surveillance, such as when the Trump administration required social media handles for foreign nationals and used AI to target student visa holders.

Coronel then posed a critical question to the panel, asking who is driving this surveillance, what motivates them, and how they collaborate with others to carry it out. Deibert explained that many of these surveillance tools are deliberately designed to operate beyond public scrutiny and accountability. Most are marketed privately and restricted from public access, making oversight almost impossible. In the United States, for example, there is a long history of intelligence operations functioning in the shadows with limited transparency. Accountability remains minimal, and profit is often a primary driver for many of the organizations involved.

Wanting to delve deeper, Coronel asked whether governments are the only buyers of surveillance software. Deibert noted that while some companies sell exclusively to governments, others are willing to work with any paying client, including private entities. He added that while experts can sometimes confirm that a phone has been hacked, it is often difficult to determine who was behind the attack. The broader problem, he said, lies in understanding who enables these breaches.

Coronel didn’t shy away from the heart of the issue, asking how those responsible for surveillance abuses can be held accountable. Jaffer acknowledged the challenge, explaining that efforts are often backtracked by secrecy, government immunity, and a confusing combination of legal and political obstacles.

With surveillance arising rapidly, Coronel raised doubts about whether government regulation is possible, or if it’s too late. Jaffer responded that while there have been some positives, such as public backlash leading to reforms in U.S. intelligence laws, significant challenges remain. Companies continue to collect large amounts of data from ordinary citizens, and the rise of AI has only expanded this.

Deibert added that progress is slow, noting that even litigation efforts often fall short. However, he pointed to an example of a shift: the Biden administration issued an executive order prohibiting federal agencies from using spyware that poses a threat to national security or that could be used to commit human rights abuses.

While the panelists noted the significant challenges posed by digital surveillance and authoritarianism, they showed a path forward. With growing awareness, legal efforts, and the support of other organizations, there is hope for stronger accountability and protection of our privacy rights. 

Panelists via Bwog Staff