Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
How does surveillance change people's behavior before anyone is punished?
Monitoring changes behavior only when people believe that they can be recognized and connected to the consequences. If a message, going to a meeting or contact with a particular person can be related to a job, a scholarship, a border or a police record, the citizen begins to narrow his movement and speech on his own.
It often avoids people who act at risk, so supervision does not only isolate the individual, but breaks the ties necessary for joint action. The government therefore does not have to monitor everyone or punish everyone; the belief that it could be part of the job. However, the technical possibility is not evidence of actual application. It is necessary to check who has access to the data, whether the bases are connected, whether there are traces of use and whether the behavior changes just after a credible signal of supervision.
Surveillance also affects when no one gets a call from the police. If an activist or a journalist believes that the phone can be viewed, contacts mapped or messages pulled without his knowledge, he begins to choose words, meetings and sources more carefully. Amnesty has forensically documented cases of the use of digital tools towards activists and journalists in Serbia; the effect of such cases spreads to people who have never been targeted.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
By analyzing the device, Amnesty described concrete infections and forensic data extraction, and SHARE explained the legal conditions, court order and risks of these technologies.
The most widespread effect of surveillance is self-censorship: uncertainty about who is the target and what is kept increases the cost of organizing and confidential conversation.
Yes concrete cases substantiate the existence of risks, while the wider psychological range remains difficult to measure.
It is not proven that all critics are monitored or that any digital forensic examination is illegal. For lawful use, the exact purpose, court order, proportionality and independent control are required.
The fact that the government can use some technology does not mean that it actually uses it or that it acts. It is necessary to check the procurement, coverage, data connection and change of behavior.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
comparing several countries or cases
Feldstein, S. (2021), The Rise of Digital Repression: How Technology Is Reshaping Power, Politics, and Resistance, Oxford University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Feldstein shows how digital technology gives authorities a whole new repertoire of controls monitoring social networks, censorship, information manipulation, shutting down the Internet and targeted punishment of users. It is important that the very possibility of people identifying more easily changes the balance of power, but the book does not directly measure how many people start to remain silent or change their behavior due to awareness of surveillance.
data from a large number of countries
Xu, X. (2021), „To Repress or to Co-opt? Authoritarian Control in the Age of Digital Surveillance“, American Journal of Political Science 65(2): 309–325.
- Contribution to this answer
- Xu shows what power gets from digital surveillance: it learns more precisely who really opposes it and can therefore “buy peace” with wide concessions, and punish concrete opponents more. In Chinese districts, the introduction of surveillance has increased security spending and arrests of political activists, and reduced public goods.
Explain how the system works
Schlumberger, O., Edel, M., Maati, A. i Saglam, K. (2024), „How Authoritarianism Transforms: A Framework for the Study of Digital Dictatorship“, Government and Opposition 59(3): 761–783.
- Contribution to this answer
- Schlumberger and co-authors warn that digital technology is not only a more efficient version of the old repression: when surveillance, data and digital control sufficiently change the ability of the authorities to see society and intervene in it, they can change the very way of authoritarian rule. For the behavior of the individual before punishment, the work is a broader theoretical framework, not immediate proof.
study of Iran and international technology firms
Conduit, D. (2025), „Digital Authoritarianism and the Global Technology Industry: Evidence from Iran“, Government and Opposition 60(3): 751–772.
- Contribution to this answer
- On Iran Conduit shows that sophisticated digital surveillance is not necessarily produced by the state itself: foreign private companies can provide it with technology and knowledge that it does not have at home. The work well explains where the surveillance ability comes from, but does not directly examine how the knowledge that we are monitored changes our behavior.
research that checks more closely what the cause is
Roberts, M. E. (2018), Censored: Distraction and Diversion Inside China’s Great Firewall, Princeton University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Roberts shows how control can work without constant punishment: if access to information becomes sufficiently risky, slow or laborious, a large number of people simply stop trying. Thus, the expected price of behavior can produce self-censorship and withdrawal even when the ban can technically be circumvented.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
International Organization for Human Rights Forensic Research - Verified 21.08.2026
Amnesty International. 2024. A Digital Prison: Surveillance and the Suppression of Civil Society in Serbia. London: Amnesty International.
- What the source records
- The report documents cases of unlocking phones and installing spyware during police or security conversations, as well as consequences for civil society.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that documented digital surveillance increases self-censorship and the cost of organizing even in people who have never received a formal punishment.
- Source limitation
- Forensic findings are strong for the analyzed devices, but the number of cases is not a measure of distribution in the entire population; the authorities have disputed the allegations of illegal work.
Domestic NGOs legal analysis of digital surveillance - Verified 21.08.2026
SHARE Foundation. 2026. Digital Forensics Tools: Legal Framework Analysis — Serbia. Belgrade: SHARE Foundation.
SHARE Foundation. 2026. Digital Forensics Tools: Legal Framework Analysis Serbia. Belgrade: SHARE Foundation.
- What the source records
- The analysis concludes that Serbian law does not provide grounds for the use of digital forensic tools outside the criminal proceedings or without a court order.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that documented digital surveillance increases self-censorship and the cost of organizing even in people who have never received a formal punishment.
- Source limitation
- Legal analysis determines what is allowed, and it can not prove on its own who in each individual case ordered or conducted illegal surveillance.
University laboratory technical research - Verified 21.08.2026
Citizen Lab. 2021. Pegasus vs. Predator: Dissident’s Doubly-Infected iPhone Reveals Cytrox Mercenary Spyware. Toronto: Munk School, University of Toronto.
- What the source records
- Scans have listed Serbia among the likely users of Predator infrastructure, showing the international market of tools that give countries secret surveillance capabilities.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that documented digital surveillance increases self-censorship and the cost of organizing even in people who have never received a formal punishment.
- Source limitation
- The network infrastructure indicates a likely user, but it does not prove itself who used the tool in Serbia, against whom and with what legal basis.
Domestic NGO monitoring of civic space - Verified 21.08.2026
Građanske inicijative. 2025. Udruženja građana — sužavanje prostora za delovanje 2024. Beograd: Građanske inicijative.
Civic Initiatives. 2025. Citizens’ Associations narrowing the space for action 2024. Belgrade: Civic Initiatives.
- What the source records
- Based on the standardized regional matrix and bi-weekly reports, 234 cases of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms were registered, with an increase in physical and verbal attacks and other pressures compared to the previous year.
- Claim it supports
- The claim that documented digital surveillance increases self-censorship and the cost of organizing even in people who have never received a formal punishment.
- Source limitation
- The records include documented and reported cases, and not a representative rate of all incidents in Serbia, while the organization at the same time has a clear role of protecting the civil space.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →