Court document reveals locations of WhatsApp victims targeted by NSO spyware

Tech Crunch - Apr 9th, 2025

NSO Group's infamous spyware, Pegasus, was deployed against 1,223 WhatsApp users across 51 countries in a 2019 hacking campaign, as revealed by a new court document. The lawsuit, filed by Meta-owned WhatsApp against NSO Group, accuses the company of exploiting a vulnerability in the messaging app to target individuals, including over 100 human rights activists and journalists. This revelation provides insight into which countries were most affected, with Mexico, India, and Bahrain topping the list of victims, and highlights the scale of government surveillance facilitated by NSO Group's spyware.

The implications of this case are significant, shedding light on the global extent of government-backed cyber surveillance and the potential misuse of technology against civil society. Although WhatsApp won a court ruling against NSO Group for breaching U.S. hacking laws, the broader issue of spyware misuse remains a pressing concern. The data from the court case underscores the financial arrangements between NSO Group and its clients, revealing that Mexico spent over $60 million on such spyware. The outcomes of this lawsuit could set precedents for the tech industry and international regulation of cyber surveillance tools.

Cybersecurity India Nso Group Whats App Human Rights Mexico Journalists Surveillance Hacking Pegasus Spyware Bahrain

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the NSO Group's Pegasus spyware campaign, supported by credible sources and expert opinions. It effectively communicates the scale and implications of the issue, although it could enhance transparency by providing direct access to primary sources. The article is timely and relevant, addressing significant public interest topics related to privacy and surveillance. While it presents a balanced view, it could benefit from including more perspectives, particularly from the victims and NSO Group. Overall, it is a well-structured and informative piece that contributes to ongoing discussions about technology and privacy.

Accuracy

The article provides a detailed account of NSO Group's Pegasus spyware campaign, which is supported by a court document as part of a lawsuit filed by WhatsApp. The claim that 1,223 WhatsApp users in 51 countries were targeted is specific and aligns with known data about the case. The breakdown of victims by country, including Mexico, India, and others, is also consistent with documented reports. However, the article does not provide direct access to the court document for independent verification, which slightly reduces its score. The mention of a cybersecurity expert adds credibility, although the exact number of victims and their locations require further confirmation from primary sources.

Balance

The article presents a well-rounded view of the situation by including perspectives from both the victim's side and the company involved. It highlights the scale of the issue with quotes from a cybersecurity expert, which adds depth. However, it predominantly focuses on the actions and repercussions for NSO Group and WhatsApp, potentially overlooking other perspectives, such as those of the victims or other stakeholders. The lack of a response from NSO Group in the article might suggest a tilt towards WhatsApp's narrative.

Clarity

The article is clear and well-structured, providing a logical flow of information. It effectively explains complex issues like the spyware's impact and the legal proceedings against NSO Group. However, it assumes a certain level of prior knowledge about NSO Group and Pegasus, which might affect comprehension for readers unfamiliar with the topic. The use of technical terms is appropriate but could be simplified for a broader audience.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources, including court documents and statements from cybersecurity experts, which enhances its reliability. The mention of a New York Times article and a known cybersecurity expert, Runa Sandvik, adds authority. However, the absence of direct quotes or statements from NSO Group or WhatsApp representatives slightly diminishes the source quality. The reliance on secondary sources like CTech and TechCrunch is appropriate but could be strengthened with more primary source data.

Transparency

The article lacks direct links to the court documents or the original lawsuit, which affects transparency. While it references a court document and expert opinions, it doesn't provide readers with access to these materials for verification. The article could improve transparency by detailing how the information was obtained and any potential biases in the sources used. Furthermore, the lack of comments from NSO Group and WhatsApp is noted but not explored in-depth, which could provide more context.