The controversy surrounding the Pegasus spyware has raised concerns in Colombia about the use of surveillance tools and their potential impact on constitutional rights. Recent reports from sources within the White House indicate that the United States financed the acquisition of Pegasus for counter-narcotics operations in Colombia, without informing then-President Iván Duque, and with access restricted to a small security group within the country. This lack of transparency has sparked concerns over the decision-making process in security matters and the potential risks for democracy.

Pegasus software, developed by NSO Group and known for its ability to intercept communications and access devices without the user’s knowledge, was allegedly used under strict security protocols and only by U.S. intelligence authorities in their anti-narcotics mission. However, when the Joe Biden administration banned its use after global abuses came to light, Colombia dismantled the program. This move, though, does not alleviate concerns about the potential misuse of such tools and the absence of adequate oversight and audits.

In recent Colombian history, espionage abuses have left a significant mark on public opinion. During Álvaro Uribe’s presidency, the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) was accused of illegal wiretapping. This precedent has sown skepticism and mistrust regarding new surveillance tools. The lack of transparency around the purchase of Pegasus and its implementation without the knowledge of top officials raises questions about accountability and the ethical use of such technologies.

Former President Duque and his officials initially denied the existence of the software, later normalizing its purchase, which highlights a worrying disconnect between the security apparatus and citizens’ right to know how these tools are being used in the country. Citizens and human rights organizations insist that any surveillance system, especially one of this scale, must be overseen with clear safeguards to prevent rights violations.

The Attorney General’s Office faces the challenge of thoroughly investigating the whereabouts, use, and legality of Pegasus in Colombia. The lack of clarity and evasive responses from those involved in the case reveal an unacceptable opacity for a government committed to fighting crime with transparency and respect for human rights. The current government, led by Gustavo Petro, has criticized the lack of information left by its predecessor and has called for clarity on the procedures used in this operation.

The Pegasus case underscores the need for a security policy that combines advanced technology with ethical principles, ensuring that the fight against crime does not come at the expense of transparency. For true security, Colombia must tackle crime without sacrificing citizens’ rights and public trust.