CIN-CG: Instead of answering essential questions of public interest, ANB once again argues with non-existent claims

The response of the National Security Agency (ANB) to the article by the Center for Investigative Reporting of Montenegro (CIN-CG) regarding allegations by employees who filed a criminal complaint with the Special State Prosecutor's Office due to suspicions of illegal surveillance once again demonstrates a pattern in which it responds to claims that were not presented in the article, instead of to substantive issues of public interest.

This was stated by CIN-CG in response to the ANB's reaction, emphasizing that no one in their article claimed that it was a "wiretapping system", and that the essence of the article was not about wiretapping communications, but rather about the claims of some ANB employees who suspect that certain software solutions enable the tracking of the location and movements of officers, including during periods when they are not at work.

We are publishing CIN-CG's response in full:

"The response of the National Security Agency (ANB) to the article by the Center for Investigative Reporting of Montenegro (CIN-CG) entitled: "Watch out, you're being filmed: ANB employees file criminal charges with the SDT over suspicions of illegal surveillance" again shows a pattern we have already seen. Namely, instead of answering essential questions of public interest, the public is offered a polemic with claims that were not even stated in the article.

CIN-CG has never stated that the software solution in question is a “wiretapping system,” nor has it claimed that the ANB illegally eavesdrops on its own employees. That is why a significant part of the ANB’s response is a response to an allegation that was not published. It gives the impression that a discussion is being held about something that is not the subject of the research, while key questions remain unanswered.

The essence of the CIN-CG article was not about the interception of communications, but about the fact that some employees filed a criminal complaint with the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) because, as they themselves claim, certain software solutions enabled the tracking of the location and movements of all employees, including periods when they were not at work. The ANB did not provide a clear and unambiguous response to these allegations.

Also, CIN-CG did not, and does not, dispute the right of the ANB to protect official phones, applications, communication channels and confidential data. Every security service has the right and obligation to take measures to protect against device theft, unauthorized access, installation of risky applications, system compromise and data leaks. There was no dispute about this in the text.

However, the right of an institution to protect official devices does not automatically mean the right to monitor the movements of employees outside of working hours, nor does it eliminate the need for public responses when employees themselves express suspicion that certain measures have exceeded legal limits. This is precisely the issue raised by CIN-CG and which the ANB failed to clarify in its response.

Instead of disputing the facts of the investigation, the ANB is once again trying to discredit journalistic work by suggesting that the public has been misled. However, the simplest way to show that the public has been misled would be to refute the specific allegations with facts. However, no such denial was offered in the response.

Therefore, open questions remain: whether there was a possibility to track the location of employees, under what conditions it was used, whether it included a period outside of working hours, and why employees believed that there were elements to file a criminal report with the SDT. These are questions that arise from the published research and are of undoubted public interest.

The public does not expect the ANB to reveal operational secrets, but to answer legitimate questions about the legality of the institution's actions. As long as it responds to claims that have not been published, rather than those that have, the impression remains that it is arguing with constructions, while avoiding the essence of the problem.

"Of particular concern is the ANB's practice of ignoring specific journalistic questions from CIN-CG, and then reacting only after the articles are published, trying to discredit journalistic work and argue about something that was not even the subject of our research," CIN-CG stated.