Paragon's Ethical Tightrope: Spyware, ICE, and the Scrutiny of Government Surveillance Contracts

In the complex and often shadowy world of commercial surveillance technology, companies that develop and sell powerful spyware tools frequently operate behind a veil of secrecy. Their client lists are closely guarded, and the details of how their technology is used by government agencies around the globe rarely see the light of day. This lack of transparency fuels significant concerns among civil liberties advocates, journalists, and human rights defenders, who argue that these tools are routinely misused to target political dissidents, activists, and innocent civilians, often with devastating consequences.

Amidst this landscape, one company, Paragon, an Israeli spyware vendor, has attempted to carve out a distinct identity. Paragon positions itself not merely as a provider of surveillance capabilities but as an “ethical” vendor, suggesting a commitment to responsible use and a higher standard than some of its more notorious competitors. This self-proclaimed ethical stance was put to a very public test earlier this year when Italy was reportedly found using Paragon’s tools to spy on the phones of two journalists. The incident drew international attention and raised questions about the effectiveness of self-regulation in the spyware industry.

Paragon’s response to the Italy situation was, by industry standards, extraordinary. The company publicly acknowledged the alleged misuse and, in an unprecedented move, announced that it was canceling its contracts with Italy. This decision marked the first time a major spyware company had ever publicly named one of its government customers and severed ties specifically due to the alleged misuse of its products. Paragon framed this action as a demonstration of its commitment to ethical principles, reinforcing its narrative that it sells only to “a select group of global democracies” and takes action when its tools are abused.

However, the ethical tightrope Paragon walks has become significantly more precarious with the emergence of a new potential customer: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). A $2 million one-year contract between Paragon and ICE, signed in September 2024, has brought the company’s “ethical” claims under intense domestic scrutiny. While the contract remains under review and Paragon has not yet supplied its spyware tools to ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations division, the prospect of ICE wielding such powerful surveillance technology has ignited a fierce debate.

Understanding Commercial Spyware and its Capabilities

To appreciate the significance of this potential contract, it’s crucial to understand what commercial spyware is and what it can do. Unlike traditional government wiretaps or surveillance methods that often require cooperation from telecommunications providers, modern commercial spyware, often referred to as “zero-click” exploits, can infiltrate a target’s smartphone without any interaction from the user. Simply receiving a message or even just being connected to a network can be enough for the software to install itself.

Once installed, this spyware provides attackers with near-total access to the device. This includes:

• Accessing all communications: Reading messages from encrypted apps like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram, as well as standard SMS and emails.
• Listening to calls: Recording phone calls made through cellular networks or internet-based apps.
• Location tracking: Pinpointing the device’s precise location in real-time.
• Accessing files: Downloading photos, videos, documents, and other files stored on the device.
• Remote activation: Secretly turning on the device’s microphone and camera to monitor surroundings.
• Keylogging: Recording everything typed on the device.

These capabilities make commercial spyware an incredibly potent tool for surveillance, far exceeding the reach of many traditional law enforcement techniques. While vendors like Paragon argue they sell these tools only to governments for legitimate law enforcement and national security purposes, the potential for abuse against political opponents, journalists, and activists is inherent in the technology itself.

Paragon's 'Ethical' Framework Under Pressure

Paragon’s public stance is that it operates differently. Following the WhatsApp revelation earlier this year that approximately 90 users, including journalists and human rights dissidents, had been targeted with Paragon’s spyware, the company sought to clarify its position. Paragon’s executive chairman, John Fleming, stated that the company sells only to “a select group of global democracies — principally, the United States and its allies.” The swift action against Italy was presented as proof of this commitment — a willingness to cut ties with a customer that allegedly violated acceptable use standards.

By taking this stance, Paragon has voluntarily placed itself in a position of judging the ethical conduct of its potential customers. This is a significant departure from the industry norm, where plausible deniability and client confidentiality are paramount. However, this also means Paragon is now open to scrutiny regarding *who* it deems an acceptable customer and whether their actions align with a universally accepted definition of “ethical” or “democratic” behavior, particularly concerning human rights and civil liberties.

ICE, Immigration Enforcement, and the Potential for Misuse

The potential deployment of Paragon’s technology by ICE introduces a new layer of complexity and controversy. Under the Trump administration, ICE has been at the forefront of large-scale immigration enforcement operations across the United States. These operations have led to the detention and deportation of thousands of migrants, and in some cases, U.S. citizens caught up in raids. Critics have extensively documented the methods used by ICE, including leveraging vast databases containing personal information and employing technology provided by government contractors like Palantir to identify and track individuals.

The prospect of adding sophisticated mobile spyware to ICE’s toolkit raises alarm bells for civil liberties advocates. While ICE’s stated mission involves enforcing immigration laws and investigating transnational crime, the broad capabilities of spyware could theoretically be used for wide-ranging surveillance that extends beyond specific criminal investigations. Given the agency’s focus on large-scale enforcement and the potential for targeting individuals based on their immigration status rather than specific criminal activity, concerns about the potential for misuse against vulnerable populations, activists, or even legal residents and citizens are significant.

The context of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement, which has been characterized by aggressive tactics and increased budgets for agencies like ICE, further heightens these concerns. With the potential for a significantly larger budget following the passing of legislation like the “Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the acquisition of powerful surveillance tools becomes a more tangible threat to privacy and civil rights.

The Biden-Era Executive Order and the Contract Review

Adding another layer to the situation is a Biden-era executive order issued in March 2023. This order specifically restricts U.S. government agencies from using commercial spyware that poses risks to national security or has been misused by foreign governments to violate human rights or target Americans abroad. The order reflects a growing international consensus that the unchecked proliferation and use of commercial spyware pose a significant threat to democracy, human rights, and cybersecurity.

The $2 million Paragon-ICE contract was signed in September 2024, well after this executive order was in effect. Recognizing the potential conflict with the order’s provisions, Homeland Security issued a near-immediate stop-work order on the contract. The stated goal was to review whether the contract complied with the executive order’s requirements, particularly concerning the potential for human rights abuses or targeting of protected individuals.

At the time the review was initiated, a Biden administration official told Wired that top leadership at Homeland Security was “immediately engaged” to determine compliance. However, nine months later, the contract remains in limbo. The stop-work order is still in effect, and Paragon has not yet delivered its technology to ICE. With only two months remaining before the one-year contract is set to expire on September 29, 2025, the window for approval is narrowing.

Despite the ongoing review and the significant ethical questions it raises, there has been a notable lack of public comment from the key players. Paragon has declined to state what it plans to do if the contract is eventually approved or clarify its future relationship with ICE. Spokespersons for Homeland Security and ICE have also remained silent when contacted for comment. Furthermore, the Trump administration, which authorized the contract and whose approach to immigration enforcement is central to the concerns about potential misuse, has not offered an update on the status of the review or its position on the Biden-era executive order, which technically remains in effect.

The Ethical Dilemma: Can ‘Ethical’ Spyware Exist?

This situation forces a deeper examination of Paragon’s “ethical” claim. Can a company truly be considered ethical if it sells powerful surveillance tools to a government agency that faces widespread criticism for its human rights record and operational tactics? The core of the dilemma lies in the inherent nature of the technology itself and the potential for its application to shift depending on the political climate and the priorities of the purchasing agency.

Civil society organizations are unequivocal in their stance. Michael De Dora, the U.S. advocacy manager at Access Now, a nonprofit dedicated to defending digital rights and exposing spyware abuses, has voiced strong opposition to the potential contract. “Given this administration’s record of attacks on human rights and civil society organizations, we hope that Paragon would reconsider the agreement,” De Dora stated. This perspective highlights the view that the customer’s track record is as important as the vendor’s stated intentions.

Paragon’s decision to cut ties with Italy set a precedent, demonstrating a willingness to walk away from a lucrative contract when faced with evidence of misuse. This action was lauded by some as a step towards greater accountability in the industry. However, the ICE contract presents a different kind of ethical test. It’s not about responding to past misuse, but about proactively assessing the risk of future misuse based on the customer’s known operational context and the political environment.

The challenge for Paragon is that its “ethical” label implies a responsibility to conduct thorough due diligence on its clients and to anticipate how its technology might be used — or misused. This is particularly difficult when dealing with government agencies operating under different administrations with varying priorities and levels of oversight. As governments and their leaders change over time, Paragon may find itself repeatedly having to re-evaluate its relationships and potentially make difficult decisions that impact its bottom line.

Broader Implications for the Spyware Industry

The Paragon-ICE situation is not just a test for one company; it has broader implications for the entire commercial spyware industry. The industry has long been criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability, with tools developed for legitimate law enforcement purposes often ending up in the hands of authoritarian regimes or being used against innocent targets in democracies.

The Biden administration’s executive order was a significant step by a major government to curb the use of problematic spyware. However, the fact that a contract like Paragon’s with ICE was even initiated — and remains under review for such a long period — suggests the ongoing tension between national security interests, law enforcement needs, and the protection of civil liberties in the digital age.

The debate also highlights the difficulty for companies in this sector to operate ethically. Is it possible to sell such powerful surveillance capabilities without the risk of them being used in ways that violate human rights? Paragon’s attempt to be an “ethical” vendor is commendable in principle, but the ICE contract demonstrates the immense pressure and complex moral calculations involved. The company must weigh the potential financial benefits of a U.S. government contract against the potential reputational damage and ethical compromise associated with providing tools to an agency facing significant human rights criticisms.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency surrounding the review process itself is problematic. The public remains largely in the dark about the criteria being used to evaluate the contract against the executive order and the specific concerns being addressed. This opacity only fuels suspicion and makes it harder to hold both the government and the company accountable.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Paragon

With the September 29th deadline looming, Paragon faces a defining moment. The decision of whether or not to proceed with the ICE contract, should it pass the government’s review, will be a crucial test of the company’s stated ethical commitments. Walking away would reinforce its image as a vendor willing to prioritize human rights concerns over profit, potentially setting a powerful example for the rest of the industry. Proceeding with the contract, however, would likely severely damage its “ethical” branding and invite further criticism from civil liberties groups and international observers.

The situation also serves as a reminder of the urgent need for greater regulation and oversight of the commercial spyware industry globally. Relying solely on vendors to police themselves, even those who claim to be ethical, is insufficient given the potential for abuse and the significant power of the technology involved. Governments must establish clear, enforceable rules that prohibit the sale of surveillance tools to entities with documented human rights abuses and ensure rigorous oversight of how these tools are used domestically.

Until a decision is made, the Paragon-ICE contract remains a symbol of the profound ethical challenges at the intersection of advanced technology, government power, and human rights. Paragon’s choice will not only impact its own future but will also send a strong signal about the feasibility and sincerity of ethical claims within the controversial commercial surveillance market.