PEGA-Untersuchungsausschuss: Staatstrojaner gefährden das Recht auf Privatsphäre

Der Ausschuss befragte in dieser Sitzung Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères, die UN-Sonderberichterstatterin für das Recht auf Privatsphäre, zu ihrer Einschätzung von Pegasus und ähnlicher Software.

Von der Anhörung gibt es ein Video, aber kein offizielles Transkript. Daher veröffentlichen wir ein inoffizielles Transkript.

---

• Date: 2022-06-09
• Institution: European Parliament
• Committee: PEGA
• Chair: Jeroen Lenaers
• Experts: Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy), Peggy Hicks (Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division of the UN Human Rights Office)
• Links: Hearing, Video
• Note: This transcript is automated and unofficial, it will contain errors.
• Editor: Julien Schat

Exchange of views with UN representatives

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Good morning, everybody. We have solved our connexion issues. So that is the first good news of the day. We’ll have interpretation today in German, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Greek, Spanish and green. Polish, Slovakian, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Romanian. And for Slovakia, Slovenia, it only means passive interpretation. Unless anybody has any comments with regards to the agenda, I consider it adopted. And I. Yes.

Cornelia Ernst (Left): I do have a request and we received the invitation at very short notice. And these are public hearings. What does this mean? That the general public has a right and to attend and. And there is interest in the general public. Now we know there’s going to be a hearing, a further hearing, but we don’t know who’s actually going to be able to attend. And unfortunately we’re not getting replies to the emails were sending. I do understand everyone is extremely busy. I’m not trying to make a big deal out of this, but just a plea to you, please, to plan ahead and ensure that public hearings can indeed be public because it’s very short notice. There’s not enough time to organise it. Generally in terms of preparation, there’s not much time. We have many committees, not just this one, and I think that applies to everyone. So that would be a heartfelt plea to you. Thank you.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you. Thank you very much, Cornelia, for that comment. We do try our best to to send everything as well in advance as possible. There are sometimes some practical issues with regards to the planning, but I do take your comment very seriously. And we will we will do our best to make sure that for the upcoming meetings we can send the agenda not only to the groups in advance, but also make sure that it is visible for the public. Because indeed, you’re right, there are public hearings. And if we only send the agendas in advance to to the groups and the people internally here, that doesn’t help us with those of the public that are interested. So I take that to heart and we will try to improve on that. Thank you.

Having said that, we move immediately to the first point of our agenda, which is an exchange of views with Dr. Brian Nougrères, who is the UN Special Rapporteur for privacy. We are very interested in hearing your views on the use of spyware, in particular Pegasus and equivalent spyware. I know you’re currently in Geneva for a meeting of the U.N. and you’ve stepped out of the room in order to have this exchange with us. So I will not take any more time, but hand the floor immediately to you for your introductory remarks. And then we’ll have a question and answer with the members who would like to take the floor. And if those members could already indicate who wishes to take the floor during the introductory remarks, then we can do this as efficient as possible. So please, Doctor Brian Nougrères. You have the floor.

Technical assistant: Dear Mrs. Brian. Anna, can you please press this big button at the bottom of your page? Dear Mrs. Brian, can you please press once on the speak button?

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Can you hear me now? No. Let’s try again.

Technical assistant: Yes, we can hear you.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): We can hear you.

Technical assistant: Dear Mrs. Brian?

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): No. And now can you hear me?

Technical assistant: Yes, we can hear you.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Yes, we go.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Good. Hear that? Good. So thank you for the invitation. Good morning to you all. And I welcome your initiative to investigate the use of Pegasus software. This software was developed by NSO Group in Israel. It was used to surveil, intimidate and harass human rights defenders, journalists and political leaders in several countries who suffer the risk of prosecutions and reprisals. It appears evident from the communications sent by special procedure experts that the Pegasus spyware and other technology enabled surveillance.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Excuse me. Excuse me. That we seem to have a problem with interpretation. Only the Spanish booth. Or is there other colleagues having issues with interpretation?

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): It’s not.

Translator: You think the sound for the English booth please signal if you cannot hear the English booth.

Translator: Can You hear the English? The second consul in the English booth is this audible?

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Do to increase the quality of the connexion.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): I can increase the quality of the connexion.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): If we having the same connexion, I can quite well understand what she’s saying. So I’m sure it should also be possible to.

Technical assistant: Dear Mrs. Brian, do you have a headset with you or a professional microphone?

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): No, I do not have here a professional mark. It’s the manual.

Technical assistant: If you have a headset it can improve.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): I should find out. I don’t know. It was quite difficult to find out a place where to do this, but it would take time. I’d have to go in front and see this. Someone that had helped us.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): But. With all due respect, I mean, in the original English here in the room, I can. I can understand you perfectly. So. We can also find a way to.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Here. Okay. Please. Please do continue.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Okay. Okay. So I was saying this software was developed by NSO Group in Israel. It was used to sort of intimidated and harassed human rights defenders, journalists and political leaders in several countries who suffer the risk of prosecutions and reprisals. It appears evident from the communications sent by a special procedure experts that the Pegasus power and other technology enabled surveillance software pose significant risks for the enjoyment of human rights, in particular the freedom of speech, of peaceful assembly and the right of privacy. Of course, you know that now privacy must be robustly protected in this evolving time of transition. We are living in new technologies, have significantly expanded the abilities of state authorities and corporations to monitor individuals by hacking their digital tools and conducting surveillance during gatherings and protests for that purpose. They use biometric tools that are based on facial recognition technology and the interception of communications, infiltrating smartphones, doing so the states and also the corporations resort to it.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Yes, but there is no. We have some technical problems with the interpretation here, it seems. And there are some colleagues who would like to be able to understand it in their language. I really apologise for any inconvenience, but we’ll try to sort out also here with the technical team, is that something we can do to allow all members to follow the meeting in their in their respective languages? I really apologise for the inconvenience, but if not, if you bear with us for a couple of minutes.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Yeah, of course. Thank you very much. But the songs resonate with.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Okay. Dear, dear colleagues, we have spoken to our interpretation services and we are going to try again and hopefully we can manage the interpretation in all languages for the remainder of this of the session. So thank you very much for. For the interpreters. For their efforts. And now we need to establish the connexion again to Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères. Who was no longer connected. Okay. We are back. So I do apologise for the inconvenience. Apparently the sound in Brussels is worse than the sound here in the room, which is something that I think we should address at the higher levels in this Parliament in order to make sure that we actually have interpretation possible also at the same quality of ourselves here in the room. I mean, we had the situation on the in the plenary already. We have it today again, which I find somewhat surprising. But that’s for another day. I’m going to give the floor immediately back to our guest, Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères and everyone else, please. I do apologise sincerely for the inconvenience.

Technical assistant: Mrs. Brian, you can press once on the speak button, please.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Can you hear me now?

Technical assistant: Yes, we can hear you.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Good. Do you want me to begin again or shall I continue?

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): I would just continue where you left. Good.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Good. So. And as I was telling you and doing so, I mean, using biometric tools that are based in facial recognition technology and the interception of communications, infiltrating smartphones and doing so this case and also the corporations resort to intrusive online surveillance, hacking ICG tools and getting access to smartphones, contacts, chat messages, phone conversations, photos and videos shared on social media and communication platforms without adequate regulations to refrain these actions. Surveillance spreads and privacy is eroded. Also, the effect of interrelated human rights on society is chilling, as there is a rise in the international sale of surveillance tools.

And what concerns to international regulations? The right to privacy as enshrined in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR. They say state that no one sorry, they state that no one should be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family home or correspondence. The General Assembly of the U.N. emphasised also that unlawful or arbitrary surveillance is a highly intrusive act which violates the right to privacy and may contradict the events of a democratic society. The General Assembly Assembly’s Resolution 73179 also noted that surveillance of digital communications must be consistent with international human rights obligations and meet the critical tests of legality, necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination and continuous such interference by the state in the private sphere must be authorised, clearly regulated, with sufficient safeguards to avoid its abuse and subjected to effective oversight. All individuals subject to electronic surveillance programmes, must continue to be treated with dignity.

So what should be done? States have a positive duty to protect individuals from undue interference with the right to privacy, and states also have a duty to prevent abuses of the right to privacy by companies. On one side, states should refrain from employing unlawful and arbitrary surveillance techniques. On the other side, states must recognise the right to remedy and should maintain strong and independent oversight measures. These measures are due to enforce national procedural safeguards even beyond the judiciary. They play a fundamental role in the implementation of mechanisms to report adverse human rights linked to business activities.

So in what concerns to the private sector obligations, we can say states should also enact and implement laws that ensure corporations are bound by the same obligations as nation of actors to respect human rights, including the right to privacy as subscribed by that. States domestically are also internationally and are fully accountable for any violation that they may cause directly or indirectly. Also, all business enterprises, including those that develop new people, new technologies that are used to monitor the activities of civil society. Actors have a responsibility to respect human rights in line with the guiding principles on business and human rights. Companies should have in place a policy commitment to meet that responsibility and carry out due diligence processes to identify. I prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights. In addition, they are expected to establish and maintain processes to address the adverse human rights impact, a cause of which they contribute. And they should be transparent in their design and in the use of surveillance products. So this would be a small part on what can be said in the topic. I thank you for your time and I look forward to responding the questions you might have. Thank you.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Dr. Nougrères. And I’m very happy that we managed to do this without any further technical glitches. So we move immediately on to the members. I would indeed, as we agreed, proposed to do it in the ping pong system. I would ask you to keep your questions short and to the point in order to allow everybody to speak. We’ll start with our rapporteur, Sophie.

Sophie in ’t Veld (Renew): Yes. Thank you. And thank you, Madam Brian. Actually, I only have one question because you referred to the need to to legislate to make sure that the legislative framework also covers corporate entities that are engaging in this kind of material. Can you can you say if you’ve been taking stock of the situation in European countries and to what extent the legislation is, let’s say, up to standards, does would you say it has to do? And what specific recommendations would you make with with regard to that? Thank you.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Nougrères.

Technical assistant: No, she’s. She says she’s connected. Mrs. Brian, can you please press this button once, please?

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy) The inspector walked out. Now it’s okay. Go. Can you hear me now? Yes. Yes, we.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Can hear and see you. Good.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Do you want me to answer again?

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Yes. These will. We’ll do the answers after each question individually. If that’s okay with you?

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Yeah, it’s fine.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): So the question was about the stocktaking of the legislation in the European member states.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Yeah. What what I think is that, all I said before is applied to regional and regional organs like it would be your case. And even though I speak on national regulations, I spoke on the basis of standards, standards that are accepted internationally.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you. A quick follow up from the rapporteur.

Sophie in ’t Veld (Renew): I would just like to, because.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Can I just ask one question? From the technical point of view, since we only have one speaker that is connected online, can we just keep her connected so she doesn’t need to re establish all the time? Please. Sophie.

Sophie in ’t Veld (Renew): Do you. I understand what you say, but.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): The microphone.

Sophie in ’t Veld (Renew): Switched off. Okay? I understand what you say about the regional approach, but and of course, we have European legislation, European standards, but we also still, to a very large extent, have national standards. And my question was, in your view, do all the member states meet the standards that you are referring to? And, you know, if not those, at least the majority or maybe norm or a minority, what would you recommend in that respect?

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): They all meet the standards. But what I can say is that we sent several letters to several states. It was, can you tell me which ones it was? And Cyprus, Bulgaria. And but just speaking of European states, it’s Bulgaria, Israel and Cyprus. So I know in that cases our groups have done research and there had been problems that way. We sent letters to ask if they can explain their way of acting towards big answers in the other cases. I couldn’t say I’m sorry. I couldn’t say.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Okay. Yeah. Thank you. It would be helpful if it would be possible to share those letters also with the committees, if that is possible.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Are they public? Yes, the public.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Good. Thank you.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): We can share them, of course.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you very much. We want to keep Mrs. to.

Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (European People’s Party): Thank you very much indeed. First of all, I’d like to thank you very much indeed this, Brian, for being available for this session with us. We, I think, all share a concern that these tools can be used in violation of human rights. And the security forces and the intelligence forces of most of the democratic countries, such as those of the European Union, have expressed concern about the illegitimate use of such tools which are undermining the rule of law. This sort of abuse has got to be recognised for what it is and not underestimated. All too often this happens, the interpreters apologise, but the sound is really very difficult to understand. Sometimes these tools are used by dictatorial regimes and dictators and we therefore have to look at the most extreme cases and we have to realise that there has been arbitrary detention, there have been torture, there have been assassinations, extrajudicial killings, and these are the sorts of things that are resulting from this.

Therefore, I have one very specific question to you. What do you think the European Union itself can do to control and to limit the legitimate use of these tools by non democratic countries in illegitimate tools such as Pegasus spyware? And secondly, you have a great deal of academic experience, and I’d like to hear from you your perspective on what’s going on on this side of the Atlantic. I know you are likely to have a perspective from the other side of the Atlantic, but I’m sure you have a view about what is happening in Europe and how these tools are being used. And perhaps you could also talk about Latin America and what you think is going on there and what the implications and the issues are and what we might be able to do about this. Cuba and Venezuela, for example, are very relevant issues for us to address. Thank you very much indeed. Perhaps you could also give us some recommendations about measures. We might take the apologise once again for the quality of the sound. It’s making a very difficult sound.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): I mean, I think it’s completely unacceptable that when a member speaks in a room in the European Parliament that the sound quality is apparently not good enough for intimidation. I feel sorry for the interpreters who are in Brussels and cannot do anything about this and have to work in very difficult circumstances. But I mean, it is something I think we have to raise that in this Parliament because I really think it’s unacceptable that when members speak.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Yeah. Okay, you can take the floor if I give you the floor. And if not, please don’t, don’t take the floor. Yes, your jokes are very funny indeed. We’ll take we’ll take this up because members should be able to speak in the rooms of the European Parliament and be properly interpreted. So we’ll make we’ll get through this meeting as good as we can, thanks to the interpreters. But I. We hope we can improve this for the next time, please. Madame Nougrères you have the floor to respond.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Thank you. Well in terms of what we might do to address the issues of Pegasus, I could make some recommendations in terms of support, but this sound quality is really not possible to interpret. We are extremely sorry, but it is just too difficult. There is so much background noise.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): I’m sorry to interrupt again. I’m just we get the message from the interpreters that there is simply too much background noise.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): And you can be so sure if.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): It would be if it would be possible to, to reply in English with duw apologies.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I can play in English. I’m sorry. Yeah. And what I was saying that is that if we went to face big arses in India in due course and we can use the recommendations I spoke before, I mean, and Pegasus is a software that can be bought by the States or by the big corporations, and they can use it and it can be used and with with no ethical purpose. So and we should consider the possibility of having a study of if this is well done, it could be done with no transparency. So we should test the transfer it is intended and maybe there should be some authorisations for the use of the back of Pegasus or for the way you buy the software. There are several ways that it can be controlled and of course there should be data protection authority that takes care of that, or maybe other authorities are not, but it should be taken care of. There are lots of things that come to my mind in what refers to the principles on data protection. They should be considered, they should be respected because they attend to the human. And in what concerns to human? And we have to say that they are the centre of every regime, every legal regime. They should be the centre because they they are the purpose of all human regime at last.

And I would like to say also that when we have international dispositions, as is in this case, and if we don’t have regulations that m enact sanctions for and the when the laws are not complied with, then that’s not a good way of defending a human rights. I mean, the law can have an existence, only virtual existence. It needs to be effective. It needs to come to the ground. And for that sake, you need the sanctions. There should be I mean, they might be I mean, you said extensions there and that there should be very specific and systems of responsibility liability of the corporations. And this should have the paid utterance also for corporations and for the states, because they can both use this sort of softwares and detriment of other human beings. I don’t know if I being clear or not. I hope I have and I’m open to any questions and in what refers to in Latin America. And it’s not something easy to know. I wouldn’t say a name if I don’t have the proofs on my table and I might suspect that it’s it’s being used. But I want to say I can say that.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you. Then we move to one quick follow up question for Mrs. Way to.

Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (European People’s Party): Thank you. Yes. I wonder whether it’s an accreditation issue and I wonder whether this Pegasus tool could, for example, peace or to the corporations and companies, enterprises, not just states. Is that sort of thing possible? Is it authorised for that?

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): I personally as well at this moment don’t know and what I can tell you and that this information came to my table in this moment is that in Latin America we have the cases of Mexico and of El Salvador that are being. We have research on that. And it’s confirmed that they are using the big arses and credible information. It’s Mexico and El Salvador.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you. On behalf of Sandy, Mr. Hyde.

Hannes Heide (Socialists and Democrats): Couple of short questions. Do the United Nations list countries that used to spy where it was interesting to hear El Salvador and Mexico. And do you list that they have attacks within their countries or to other countries? Would be a question I have. And another question is, have any representatives of the United Nations have been attacked by by Pegasus or a comparable spyware? And has your device been checked or what devices within the United Nations are checked, which people are seen as potential targets? And a question of understanding U.S.. You mentioned to European your letters to European countries, member states of the European Union. What was the content of that? What do you criticise? Is it insufficient laws or concrete use of any spyware and concrete things that happened? Concrete actions by these countries. Thank you.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Both things. It would be the both things. Insufficient laws or. And not complying with the laws. It would be both. And how do we get to know that? Well, there are experts that do research when there has. There is some. And when there is, someone comes to say there’s a problem, then the experts and do do research. That’s where we don’t have a list. We we do have the name of the countries with whom we worked at.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you for renew that to me.

Róża Thun und Hohenstein (Renew): Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Mrs. Nougrères, for this meeting. And I would like. You said that you said that this those spying devices can be used with no ethical purpose. Normally, they that they should be authorised, that they must be controlled. Of course, yes. And normally, you also mentioned the insufficient laws or laws that do not comply. But. Normally the governments who use the such tools to spy on the citizens of for whatever reason, and normally it should be to defend citizens from heavy or criminal deeds. Normally those governments need an agreement of a court, or in some countries, as far as I know, prosecution.

And now, since we must control those governments and this whole process should be controlled. I wonder, what do you think? And does it function in any country that those citizens who these first those citizens who discover that they were spied on and not all of them know that they were spied on. So so those who these who know that were spied on, shouldn’t they demand some kind of compensation in the case of the government or those who spied on them, the prosecution, police, whoever special services didn’t discover this and criminal didn’t find out anything criminal. And there were no proofs that there was any reason to spy on them. Shouldn’t they become compensation?

Secondly, shouldn’t those services who spy on them inform those people who are not found guilty that they were spied on a give them to give them access to the data that were collected so that they know what happens with all the information that was de facto finally illegally collected. And the and the subject of the spying activity does not know what happens with all of this information. So two things. Information inform them that they were spied on. What happens with the data and compensation would be the issue that I would like to clarify. Thank you very much.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Well, my answer is yes and yes. They should be compensated. Of course there should be. And yes, there should be some information. That’s what we call the principle of transparency. They should be told. They should they should know what what’s happening happening with their data. And they should be asked for consent also. But in cases, there is something to do with and important security issues in that case. And perhaps the law admits the use of these tools and it can be used but anyway. And transparency must be present at all times.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you. And then on behalf of the Greens Vice Chair, Diana Riba i Giner.

Diana Riba i Giner (Greens): Okay. Thank you. And I hope the speaker can listen and see us. Must emotionally, though. Laura. If we can all agree that this surveillance technology there and we find ourselves in something of a vicious Cycle. Because once again we find ourselves to be guaranteed and for governments to have access to intelligence and security technology. But at the same time we have to.

Translator: Keep limits with interpretation. There seems to be a connexion problem with Brussels. The interpreters apologise. We do hope you can still hear us. Can you hear the English Channel testing the English Channel?

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Well, but it seems to be some sort of an intermittent cut-offs in the in in French and German language and in English sometimes as well. Someone. Could you. Could you test the English Channel again?

Translator: English Channel testing. The English Channel testing.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Section three for.

Translator: The interpreter will switch to another console to see if that helps.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Not only in English, it is also in French and German. So I think it’s a matter of the connexion as a whole. You know.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Could we. Could we test the German channel?

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Okay. So we need to to solve it. So we’ll continue and see if it works now.

Diana Riba i Giner (Greens): Yeah, but for me, it’s more difficult to speak English than we want to talk about technical issues. Can you please.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Continue in Spanish? Okay. We’ll check if it works now.

Diana Riba i Giner (Greens): Okay.

Translator Continue. Okay.

Diana Riba i Giner (Greens): I can do that slowly.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Okay. So we will resume the meeting.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Yeah. Okay.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Please continue in Spanish and we’ll test it. Okay. Colleagues, if could have a little bit of peace and quiet in the room, it would also help with the translation. Also, the chair of the Labour Committee, please.

Diana Riba i Giner (Greens): So let me just cut straight to the chase and put my questions. Do hope you can hear the interpretation and I’ll switch to English if need be. Straight to my questions. And again.

Diana Riba i Giner (Greens): So my questions then I do hope you can hear the questions. And I will do that without too much of an introductory remark. My first question. Okay. We keep talking about the limitations of a need for national security, and I think we will come back to that. And as always, this context of national security and that being a national competence without European competence in this field.

So how can we get out of this an endless cycle that we find ourselves getting trapped into where we need some sort of European solution to this problem? I think we agree. So why is it possible today for a state to need to spy on people without in an indiscriminate way, without any consequence for that kind of action? There’s no consequence. And that’s the problem, really. You can purchase fairly easily and fairly cheaply. The Pegasus software. Pegasus software, without any kind of consequence for the member states when they use it in an indiscriminate way. So how can we, as European legislation latest protect citizens against this kind of indiscriminate spying, which it’s very regrettable. Thank you.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Yes, Dr. Brian Nougrères, please. You have the floor to reply.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Thank you. And I believe that in what concerns the privacy. And we have to take into account the privacy principles. I mean, the basic principles are consent. And then you can speak of purpose and then you can speak of proportionality of the information for the purpose for which it is collected. Non-Discrimination, necessity to follow the legal patterns are in case you are to follow the international standards. So that would be the way you can solve the situations to regulate and saying what what what is the there should be what is the must. That’s what I understand. Good would be a good idea. The principle of transparency also is very important because we need to know when a software is being created, when your job, which is the purpose of the software, when we are going to buy it. Also, we need to know the purpose for which I’m going to buy it. And if it’s going to and pass over some fundamental rights, then we have to take that into account and take the decisions as should be.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you. On behalf of Gilles Lebreton.

Gilles Lebreton (Identity and Democracy): Thank you. I hope so. I speak French. This spyware can be used by states and we’ve discussed that at some length. The difficulty for us is that states should normally come up with their own national legislation to form a frame for this kind of spyware. So it’s not within our competence. But what’s also interesting to know is that apparently this spyware is sent is sold to private companies, multinationals, and perhaps then we can do something because these companies apparently engage in cross-border spying and perhaps we can do something about that. So I have two questions. First of all, do you have the names of multinational companies that use this kind of software? And secondly, do you not think that in the light of this phenomenon, the European Union, for example, could take action? I look forward to hearing your answers.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): I’m sorry that the translation changed from French to to English in the middle of the second question. I couldn’t understand the question. Would you be so kind to repeat it? I’m sorry.

Gilles Lebreton (Identity and Democracy): Apparently, you’re asking me to repeat the second question. The second question is this. Given that we’ve have multinational companies engaging in spying, do you think that the European Union or, for example, the U.N. could take action? Do you think that they might have competence to do something about this phenomenon?

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Listen, colleagues. I don’t know. I’m a little bit upset about this morning’s meeting, and I’m not sure whether it’s really constructive to to continue in these circumstances. So I would propose, if nobody disagrees, to suspend the meeting now and see if we can find another opportunity. And I do I do really apologise to our guests, but it’s it’s very difficult to have a good exchange of views in these technical circumstances. So I would ask for your indulgence and we suspend the meeting now and see if we can find another moment where we could continue to to hear your highly interesting views on the issues that we discuss. But at this moment, it doesn’t seem to make much sense to continue if you can’t understand the questions, and we have great difficulties in understanding the answers. So I would like to thank you very much for your time. I sincerely apologise for the difficulties and I really hope that we can invite you at a later moment to continue our exchange of views but can’t do very much.

Dr. Ana Brian Nougrères (UN Special Rapporteur for Privacy): Thank you. And we can also consider just.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): One moment, please, because Miss Peggy Hicks was our second guest today. She is also online. She has been connected. We re going to have the same difficulties from a technical perspective, since we already have the difficulties from within our room. So also to Miss Peggy Hicks, I would really apologise for the inconvenience and I hope that also for you we could ask you for your flexibility to come and meet us in a different time. You have the floor if you want to respond. Mr. Hicks, colleagues, if you could be silent for 1 minutes. Oh, yeah.

Hicks Peggy: Yes. I was just saying that I totally understand and look forward to engaging with the committee when the technical issues can be worked out. Thank you.

Jeroen Lenaers (Chair): Thank you. Thank you so much. And apologies and I end the meeting here. And I really hope that we can solve these issues for the next time. Thank you very much.