The Democratic Party has leveled serious accusations against the National Authority for Cyber Security, claiming that the institution monitored the information space surrounding the protest against the government. Denisa Kele, head of the Democratic Party’s Department of Artificial Intelligence, said that statements by NAKS Director Bledar Kazia show that the institution monitored news reports, photos and content published in connection with the protest.
Të lidhura
None found
According to Kele, monitoring a political protest raises questions about the institution’s impartiality and the way citizens’ data were collected and processed. She argued that open sources do not automatically mean that every piece of data can be collected and analyzed by the state.
She also called for transparency regarding the legal basis, purpose and manner in which the information was stored. Finally, Kele called on the Commissioner for the Right to Information and the Protection of Personal Data and the Ombudsperson to examine the matter.
Statement by Denisa Kele, head of the Democratic Party’s Department of Artificial Intelligence:
The director of the National Authority for Cyber Security admitted that his institution monitored the information space surrounding the protest against Zvërnec. This is the largest protest against the government this year. And he found “disinformation” only among those who were protesting.
On Monday, Bledar Kazia stated that NAKS “has data” on the protests and that it came into contact with them by “monitoring open sources.” According to him, the subjects of the monitoring were news reports, photos and content related to the protest.
When a state institution monitors the entire information space surrounding a protest—what is written, what is shared and which photos are circulating—that is not cybersecurity. It is mass surveillance. And it is not directed at just any event, but at a civic movement against the government that appoints the director of this institution.
Kazia spoke of an “unrealistic mass turnout at the protest,” photos manipulated with artificial intelligence, and events that “did not happen.” All of these claims favored the protest.
He said nothing about the other side. Nothing about disinformation favoring the government, AI-generated content intended to minimize the protest, or networks of accounts attacking protesters. If NAKS monitored “open sources” impartially, where are these findings? If it did not monitor them, then we are not talking about protection against disinformation. We are talking about gathering information on the government’s political opponents.
This is not a minor detail. Article 18 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of political beliefs, while Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits the same in the exercise of any right. A state institution that looks only at one side of the political debate has lost the impartiality required by law.
“Open sources” does not mean “without the law.”
Law No. 124/2024 “On the Protection of Personal Data,” which is fully aligned with the GDPR, does not make processing lawful merely because the data are public. Your name, photo and post remain personal data. When the state collects and systematically analyzes them, it needs a clear legal basis, a defined purpose and an assessment of the impact on your rights.
Content about a protest against the government reveals political beliefs. European law treats these as a special category, the processing of which is prohibited in principle. Monitoring an opposition movement is precisely the kind of case for which this prohibition was written.
Strasbourg has made this clear:
In Rotaru v. Romania, in 2000, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that even public information, when systematically collected by the state, is protected under Article 8 of the Convention.
The rule is clear: the state cannot keep records of who protested and what they said without a clear legal basis, a legitimate purpose and a genuine need. Even less so when the protest is against the government itself.
NAKS is not an intelligence service.
Law No. 25/2024 “On Cybersecurity” tasks NAKS with protecting systems and networks, not with analyzing what citizens write. Kazia said the monitoring was carried out “for the cyber aspect that we are legally obliged to address.” But news reports, photos and narratives are not cyber incidents. They are speech, and speech is protected by Article 22 of the Constitution, while assembly is protected by Article 47. Even secret services have specific laws and parliamentary oversight.
A technical agency under the government’s authority that monitors a protest against the government has neither of these. The message citizens received on Monday was this: when you protest against the government, the state is watching and has “data.” The European Court calls this a chilling effect and treats it as interference with freedom of expression and assembly. No one needs to be arrested. It is enough for people to start questioning themselves before they post.
The questions NAKS must answer publicly are: Which legal provision authorizes NAKS to monitor content concerning a political protest?
What was monitored? Only inauthentic networks, or also the accounts of citizens, journalists and activists? Was disinformation favoring the government also monitored? If so, where are the findings? If not, why not?
Was data on identifiable individuals retained? Where, for how long and who has access, including the Prime Minister’s Office? Where is the evidence of “real and documented” interference?
I call on the Commissioner for the Right to Information and the Protection of Personal Data to launch an investigation on their own initiative and on the Ombudsperson to examine the infringement of freedom of assembly. Every citizen who protested or wrote about the protest has the legal right to ask NAKS whether it processed data about them. Exercise this right. Hybrid threats are real.
