Yup, that is the question. You see, I made mention of this before, but I never dug into it. It was linked to something else and saw it as a side effect. Yet the Times of Israel gives us ‘NSO spyware allegations poison Spain’s ties with Catalan separatists’ (at https://www.timesofisrael.com/nso-spyware-allegations-poison-spains-ties-with-catalan-separatists/). There we see “Canada’s Citizen Lab group said Monday that at least 65 people linked to the Catalan separatist movement had been targets of Pegasus spyware in the wake of a failed independence bid in 2017.” I am not debating whether this is true or false. Consider that the NSO group charges $100,000 per infection. So who is willing to pay $6,500,000? So when we are given “Citizen Lab, which focuses on high-tech human rights abuses, said it could not directly attribute the spying operations, but that circumstantial evidence pointed to Spanish authorities.” OK, I can go along with that. If there is someone willing to pay $6.5M to monitor Catalan’s the CNI (Centro Nacional de Inteligencia) makes sense. Yet no one is debating or investigating Citizen’s Lab. I am not stating that they are doing anything wrong, yet no one scrutinises that evidence, questions that evidence or digs into that evidence. Then there is the set state that there is no real timeline. So when we see “in the wake of a failed independence bid in 2017” when was it investigated, when was the ‘evidence’ found and when were the expectations seen as transgressions of privacy were in question? All questions that no one seems to be asking. The absence of a timeline? When did we see ‘trivial’ facts as evidence? When did we see assumed connection as set towards facts?
The article does make a much larger stage towards required timelines and s I see it several timelines are missing. From the NSO group, from the Catalan’s and from Citizens Lab. Three timelines that are decently crucial to this all and no one is seeing that basic requirement.