Google Gemini gemini.google.com/app/9f97c8…
Azerbaijan’s State Security Service Under Scrutiny for Pervasive Surveillance
Allegations of widespread and unchecked surveillance of citizens and foreigners by Azerbaijan’s State Security Service (DTX) have been extensively reported by international human rights organizations and media outlets. While the Azerbaijani government maintains that its surveillance activities are conducted within a legal framework and are necessary for national security, a significant body of evidence suggests a pattern of intrusive monitoring that frequently targets journalists, activists, and political opponents without due process.
Official Stance and Legal Framework
The State Security Service of the Republic of Azerbaijan officially states that its operations are guided by the country’s constitution and laws, including those on “national security,” “intelligence and counterintelligence,” and “operational-search operations.” The agency’s mandate includes counterintelligence, counter-terrorism, and protecting state secrets. Azerbaijani law also includes provisions for the protection of personal data.
In a recent development, the DTX announced that it had taken measures to prevent foreign interference with video surveillance cameras in offices and homes across the country, framing its role as a protector of citizens’ privacy against external threats.
Reports of Widespread and Targeted Surveillance
Despite the official narrative, numerous reports from credible international sources paint a starkly different picture. Human rights organizations have documented a systematic campaign of surveillance against those critical of the government.
A key piece of evidence is the Pegasus Project, an international investigative journalism initiative, which revealed that over 1,000 Azerbaijani phone numbers were selected for potential targeting with the highly invasive Pegasus spyware, developed by the Israeli company NSO Group. Forensic analysis confirmed that the devices of numerous Azerbaijani journalists and civil society activists were infected with this spyware, which allows for the complete monitoring of a person’s digital life, including encrypted communications, photos, and location data.
The U.S. State Department, in its annual human rights reports, has consistently raised concerns about unlawful interference with privacy in Azerbaijan. These reports have noted that the government “unlawfully monitored the private online and telephone conversations of a large number of individuals without a judicial warrant,” and that there is “little accountability for such actions.” The reports have also highlighted the seizure of electronic devices from journalists and activists, with the information obtained often used in politically motivated prosecutions.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have echoed these concerns, detailing how the Azerbaijani authorities use surveillance to stifle dissent and persecute critics. Their reports describe a climate of fear in which individuals are hesitant to communicate freely for fear of being monitored. These organizations have documented cases where private and intimate information, likely obtained through surveillance, has been used to blackmail and pressure activists.
A Weak Legal Framework and Lack of Accountability
While Azerbaijan has laws pertaining to data protection, critics argue that these are not effectively implemented and are often disregarded in cases deemed to be of state security interest. The legal framework for authorizing surveillance is often opaque, and judicial oversight is weak, leading to a lack of meaningful checks on the powers of the security services.
The Azerbaijani government has consistently dismissed the findings of international human rights organizations and investigative journalists as “false” and “biased.” There is a significant lack of independent investigation into allegations of unlawful surveillance, and those responsible are rarely held accountable.
In conclusion, while the Azerbaijani government asserts that its surveillance activities are legal and necessary, a substantial body of evidence from international human rights monitors and investigative journalists points to a reality of pervasive and intrusive surveillance by the State Security Service. This monitoring appears to be a key tool in a broader strategy to control the information landscape and suppress dissent, with journalists, human rights defenders, and political opponents being the primary targets. The existing legal and oversight mechanisms have proven insufficient to protect the fundamental right to privacy for both citizens and foreigners in the country.