The Silent Threat: Why Spyware Isn't Just a Tool of Dictators — It's a Portfolio Risk

The Unseen Consequences of Surveillance Technology

When I first encountered reports of the Serbian student activists being targeted with advanced spyware, it wasn't just a story about human rights violations that caught my attention. It was the unmistakable signal that we are all complicit in a global surveillance ecosystem that has outlived its intended purpose.

"The targeting of Serbian activists with advanced spyware is the latest warning in a mounting record of abuse..."

That letter from Meredith Veit, echoing the growing chorus of concern, should be a wake-up call to every investor. We've been told that these technologies are used only for fighting terrorism and crime—yet we're now seeing their deployment against journalists, civil society leaders, and even democratic institutions themselves.

When Profit Becomes a Weapon

The commercial spyware industry is not some obscure niche. It's a global enterprise built on the promise of security, but one that has increasingly turned into a weaponized market. Companies like NSO Group, Pegasus, and others have sold their tools to governments around the world, often without adequate oversight or human rights safeguards.

And it's not just the buyers who are at fault—it's how the money flows through our investment systems that matters. Every pension fund, development finance institution, and sovereign wealth fund that holds shares in these firms inadvertently supports a business model where silence is more profitable than speech.

• NSO Group was ordered to pay $167 million for targeting journalists
• Criminal complaints have followed attacks on journalists in Germany
• The U.S. government imposed sanctions on spyware profiteers
• Multiple countries are tightening export controls
• Some firms have collapsed under the weight of litigation and reputational damage

Investors Are Paying the Price

But what's truly alarming is that the fallout from these abuses isn't limited to legal battles or sanctions. It's also about the financial exposure investors carry when they invest in companies whose products are being weaponized.

Take a major tech company, for example—let's say one of the biggest players in cybersecurity. That firm may be profitable today, but if it's tied to spyware firms through supply chains or investments, its own infrastructure becomes vulnerable to attacks from the same sources that target journalists and activists. The cost of defending against such threats can far exceed any profit gained from those investments.

We're looking at a cascading effect where one misstep in the supply chain—say, an acquisition of a shadowy surveillance firm by a public company—can result in a massive reputational and financial blowback.

What This Means for Institutional Investors

For institutions with mandates to create long-term social value, this isn't just about risk management. It's about integrity. When pension funds or development banks invest in companies that manufacture spyware, they are essentially funding a system that can undermine democracy itself.

This is why I believe we need new frameworks for evaluating portfolios—not just from a financial perspective but also through the lens of ethical exposure. We must screen commercial spyware firms out of investment universes. We must require fund managers to trace and eliminate exposure across all levels of their investment chains.

The Responsibility of Citizens

This is also about us, as citizens. Are we comfortable with the idea that our tax dollars or pension contributions might be financing spyware used to silence dissenters? How many of us would support a government using such tools if it were revealed that our own investments had funded them?

There's an urgency here that demands action—not just from investors, but from all of us who care about the future of open societies. We can no longer pretend that surveillance technology is a neutral tool. It is a political one, and it's being used to control information, manipulate public discourse, and erase accountability.

A Call for Accountability

Let me be clear: this is not a call for censorship or overregulation. It's a call for transparency. A demand that investors take responsibility for the full consequences of their capital allocation. And a reminder that in our increasingly digital world, the line between security and oppression is thinner than ever.

Until we begin to hold ourselves accountable for what we fund, the real threats will remain hidden—right beneath our noses, waiting to strike at the heart of democracy itself.