nyt: Pegasus row reigns; Opposition accuses government of espionage: Key Points | India News – Times of India

New Delhi: A new controversy has arisen after a report in The New York Times which claimed that India has bought it. Pegasus spyware from Israel in 2017 as part of a $2 billion defense deal.
Following the report, the Center faced heavy criticism from opposition parties, who accused it of “betraying” Parliament.
Last year, controversy erupted in several countries, including India, over the alleged use of the Israeli spyware Pegasus to spy on journalists, human rights defenders, politicians and others.
What does the report say?
NowIn a report titled, ‘The Battle for the World’s Most Powerful Cyberweapon’, the Israeli firm NSO Group had been selling its surveillance software on a subscription basis to law-enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world for nearly a decade. , promising that it can do what no one else – not a private company, not even a state intelligence service – can do: securely and reliably encrypt the encrypted communications of any iPhone or Android smartphone. Crack off.”
Narendra is also mentioned in the report. ModiVisit to Israel in July 2017, when he became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit the country.
“For decades, India had maintained a policy of “commitment to the Palestinian cause” and relations with Israel were cold. Modi’s visit, though notably cordial, was his and the (then Israeli) prime minister (Benjamin). Complete with a carefully staged moment with Netanyahu walking barefoot on a local beach,” it said.
Opposition targets Modi government
The opposition alleged that the government was involved in illegal espionage which amounted to “treason”.
The Congress hit out at the government over the report and accused it of betraying the Supreme Court and hijacking democracy.
Former Congress President Rahul Gandhi said in a tweet, “Modi government bought Pegasus to spy on our primary democratic institutions, politicians and public. Government officials, opposition leaders, armed forces, judiciary all targeted with these phone tappings.” Gone. This is treason.” ,
In a tweet, CPM General Secretary Sitaram Yechury “The (Narendra) Modi government should explain on the affidavit why it bought this cyber weapon, who gave permission to use it, how the targets were selected and who got this report,” he said.
Shiv Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi alleged that the spyware was not used for defense purposes but to spy on the opposition and journalists.
Government pulled up report now
Union Minister Gen VK Singh called the NYT “betel media” on its report about a deal between India and Israel.
Responding to the NYT report, Singh, Minister of State for Road Transport & Highways and Civil Aviation, said on Twitter: “Can you trust the NYT?? They are known as “Supari Media”.
A government source told news agency PTI that the Pegasus software case is being monitored by a committee under the Supreme Court and its report is awaited.
The source said the inquiry committee, set up under the supervision of retired Supreme Court judge RV Raveendran, has also published a newspaper advertisement on January 2 calling for submission of phones by those who claim that their devices are from Pegasus. were infected.
India’s former Permanent Representative to the United Nations Syed Akbaruddin dismissed the “objection” as “complete nonsense” in the NYT report, which included India’s 2019 vote in support of Israel at the United Nations Economic and Social Council. It was cited as deepening ties after a deal that included a sale. Of Pegasus.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a video message on the completion of 30 years of full diplomatic relations between India and Israel, said that the people of India and Israel have always shared a special relationship.
Last October, the Supreme Court set up a three-member independent expert panel to investigate the alleged use of Pegasus for targeted surveillance in India, noting that the state does not have a “free pass” every time a national security threat arises. and that the judiciary by mere invocation cannot become a “silent spectator” and does not intimidate it.
(with agency input)

,