On 26 February, the UK government confronted a debate over its contradictory stance on cyber surveillance as it leads the ethical Pall Mall Process, while simultaneously awarding multimillion-pound contracts for Israeli tech tested in Palestinian territories.
Diplomats in London and Paris draft codes of conduct to protect privacy. In parallel, domestic departments are quietly funding the growth of a controversial industry.
The tension between Britain’s role as a global regulator and its status as a major customer of advanced invasion tools has reached a critical point. This parallel track strategy has left us asking whether the UK is truly trying to fix the market or simply monetizing surveillance for its own security needs.
The UK appears to be walking a thin line. On one side of the aisle, it champions international human rights, on the other side, it relies on war technology to maintain domestic security. The surveillance tech reliance in conflict zones creates gaps between what the government says publicly, and its conduct behind closed doors.
Cyber Surveillance Is All for Spying
At the heart of the UK’s diplomatic strategy is the Pall Mall Process, a joint initiative with France designed to bring spyware regulation to a wild global market. However, the integrity of this process was recently challenged when the NSO Group -creator of the Pegasus software – tried to use the forum to whitewash its reputation.
Civil society leaders were quick to dismiss the move, pointing out that privatized spying remains a threat as long as companies sell to tyrants without fear of consequence.
Despite these warnings, UK police forces have deepened their ties with Israeli firms like Cellebrite. Records show that several regional departments are using privatized spying tools to bypass smartphone encryption, and software that has been used extensively on seized Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
While the Home Office remains silent on specific deals, the reliance on these tools suggests that the UK’s commitment to responsible use may not apply when its own investigators need a digital key.
Victor Cooper, a senior director at Cellebrite, defended the company’s role.
“Cellebrite’s solutions are forensic tools used in legally sanctioned investigations and require physical possession of the device. They do not enable remote access,” he stated.
However, the fact that these tools are developed in environments of systemic conflict makes their adoption by British police an ethical conflict towards cyber surveillance.
The Ethics of “Blood Tech”
In August 2025, just weeks after the UK sanctioned Israeli Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, for stimulating violence, the Ministry of Defense (MoD) signed a $13.47 million (£10 million) contract with Pearson Engineering.
Pearson Engineering is a subsidiary of the Israeli state-owned giant Rafael, which falls under Smotrich’s ministerial oversight. To many activists, it’s an example of blood tech surveillance, investing in a military supply chain that is actively engaged in the very conflict the UK claims to condemn.
“Awarding a £10 million contract to a subsidiary of the Israeli state-owned Rafael is morally bankrupt, shameful, and undermines the UK’s sanctions on Smotrich,” said Jason Hussein of the Newcastle Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
So, as things stand, it seems that the UK continues its monetizing surveillance strategy, with the British government’s lines between security and complicity blurring day by day.
The government insists it maintains ‘rigorous due diligence’ – a high-standard investigation to detect information, yet continues to procure sovereign spyware and hardware from the very sources it labels as ‘rogue state behavior’ in diplomatic rounds.
With the emergence of more advanced zero-click spyware, which can breach a phone without the user even entering a link, the stakes for the Pall Mall Process have never been higher.
The future of cyber surveillance depends on whether the UK can align its domestic spending with its international promises.
Critics argue that continuing to support sovereign spyware manufacturers without precise conditions, the government is essentially monetizing surveillance at the cost of its global credibility. If the UK looks forward to becoming a true leader in cyber surveillance, it must decide if its priority is the rule of law or the tools of trade.
Ultimately, the country’s cyber surveillance policy remains a paradox. By hosting global summits, it seeks to be the world’s digital law enforcement example, but by signing these checks, it remains one of the industry’s most profitable patrons.
The world is watching to see whether the UK will finally choose a consistent path for cyber surveillance, or if security at any cost remains silent in control.
Inside Telecom provides you with an extensive list of content covering all aspects of the tech industry. Keep an eye on our Cybersecurity sections to stay informed and up-to-date with our daily articles.