Cellebrite Cut Off Serbia Citing Abuse Of Its Phone Unlocking Tools. Why Not Others?

Cellebrite Phone Tools: Why Serbia Got Cut Off, Not Others

When Cellebrite, the company behind powerful phone unlocking tools used by law enforcement worldwide, cut off Serbian police last year, it sent a message: abuse of its technology would have consequences. But recent allegations of similar misuse in Kenya and Jordan haven't led to the same response. Why the inconsistency? This article breaks down what happened, what researchers have found, and what it means for digital rights globally.

Credit: Jack Guez/AFP / Getty Images

What Exactly Are Cellebrite Phone Unlocking Tools?

Cellebrite phone unlocking tools are specialized systems designed to extract data from mobile devices, even when they're locked or encrypted. Law enforcement agencies worldwide use them for criminal investigations, counterterrorism operations, and intelligence gathering. The technology can bypass passcodes, retrieve deleted messages, and access photos, location history, and app data. While these capabilities can help solve serious crimes, they also raise significant privacy concerns when used without proper oversight. Human rights advocates warn that such powerful tools can easily be turned against journalists, activists, and political opponents in countries with weak democratic safeguards. The dual-use nature of this technology makes responsible vendor policies critically important for protecting civil liberties.

How Serbia Lost Access to Cellebrite Technology

Last year, Cellebrite made a rare public decision: it suspended police and intelligence agencies in Serbia from using its phone unlocking tools. The move followed a detailed technical report documenting how Serbian authorities allegedly hacked into the phones of a journalist and an activist. The report claimed that spyware was planted on their devices using Cellebrite's technology. Cellebrite cited this evidence when announcing the suspension, marking one of the few times the company has publicly cut off a customer over documented abuse. For digital rights advocates, the action represented a potential turning point—a sign that vendors might start holding clients accountable for misuse. But that hope has since been tempered by more recent developments in other regions.

New Allegations Emerge in Kenya and Jordan

In early 2026, researchers published new investigations pointing to similar patterns of abuse in Kenya and Jordan. In Kenya, evidence suggests government agents used Cellebrite's tools to unlock the phone of a prominent activist and politician while he was held in police custody. In Jordan, separate findings indicated that the phones of several protesters and activists were accessed using the same technology. In both cases, investigators detected traces of a specific application linked to Cellebrite's unlocking systems on the compromised devices. Researchers described these digital fingerprints as a high-confidence indicator that Cellebrite tools were used. Yet despite the parallels to the Serbia case, the company's response has been markedly different and less transparent.

Why the Different Response to Abuse Claims?

Cellebrite has dismissed the allegations in Kenya and Jordan, declining to commit to independent investigations. This contrasts sharply with its earlier stance on Serbia, where the company acted swiftly after reviewing technical evidence. The shift raises difficult questions: Has Cellebrite changed its internal policies? Are some allegations considered more credible than others? Or do commercial pressures influence which customers face consequences? Without transparent criteria for evaluating abuse claims, it's hard for outside observers to understand the company's decision-making. This lack of clarity undermines trust among human rights organizations and the public. It also creates uncertainty for governments and agencies that rely on Cellebrite's technology for legitimate law enforcement work.

What Digital Rights Experts Are Saying

Privacy advocates and digital rights experts express growing concern about the inconsistent enforcement of abuse policies. They argue that technology vendors have a responsibility to conduct thorough, impartial reviews whenever credible evidence of misuse emerges. Some experts note that selective enforcement can inadvertently enable authoritarian practices by signaling that certain regions or governments face fewer consequences. Others emphasize that clear, publicly available guidelines would help both customers and watchdogs understand what behaviors trigger suspension. The broader conversation reflects a maturing debate about corporate accountability in the surveillance technology sector. As these tools become more powerful and widespread, the stakes for getting oversight right continue to rise significantly.

The Global Stakes of Surveillance Tool Oversight

The debate over Cellebrite's actions touches on larger questions about the global trade in surveillance technology. When powerful unlocking tools fall into the hands of abusive regimes, the consequences can be severe: journalists silenced, activists imprisoned, and dissent crushed. International frameworks for controlling such exports remain fragmented and often unenforced. Meanwhile, demand for these capabilities continues to grow among law enforcement agencies worldwide. This tension highlights the need for stronger industry standards and more robust human rights due diligence. Companies that develop dual-use technologies must balance legitimate security needs with the risk of enabling repression. Getting that balance wrong can have real-world impacts on freedom and safety for vulnerable populations.

What Comes Next for Cellebrite and Human Rights?

Moving forward, pressure is likely to mount on Cellebrite to clarify its policies and apply them consistently. Stakeholders—including investors, customers, and civil society groups—may push for greater transparency in how abuse allegations are investigated and resolved. Some advocates are calling for independent oversight mechanisms to review high-risk sales and usage. Others suggest that industry-wide coalitions could establish baseline standards for responsible deployment. Whatever path emerges, one thing is clear: the choices made by technology vendors today will shape the digital rights landscape for years to come. For activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens in vulnerable regions, those choices aren't abstract—they're a matter of personal safety and freedom.

Why This Story Matters to You Right Now

You might wonder why a corporate policy decision about phone unlocking tools should matter to your daily life. The truth is, the norms established today around surveillance technology affect everyone's digital privacy tomorrow. When companies fail to enforce consistent standards, it creates a ripple effect that weakens protections globally. Ordinary citizens rely on strong digital rights to speak freely, organize peacefully, and access information without fear. The Cellebrite case isn't just about one company or a few countries—it's a test of whether the tech industry can self-regulate in the public interest. As these tools become more accessible and powerful, the need for accountable oversight becomes increasingly urgent for all of us.

The Path Forward for Ethical Technology Use

Meaningful change will require collaboration between companies, governments, and civil society. Technology vendors like Cellebrite can start by publishing clear, enforceable policies on customer vetting and abuse response. Governments can strengthen export controls and require human rights impact assessments for surveillance technology sales. Civil society groups play a vital role in monitoring use cases and advocating for victims of misuse. Most importantly, the public deserves transparency about how these powerful tools are deployed and who holds vendors accountable. Building a safer digital future isn't about halting innovation—it's about ensuring that progress serves human rights, not undermines them. The choices made now will echo far beyond today's headlines.
As the conversation around surveillance technology intensifies, the Cellebrite case serves as a critical test of whether private companies can effectively police the use of their own tools. The inconsistency between the Serbia suspension and the response to Kenya and Jordan allegations leaves many questions unanswered. For those who believe technology should empower rather than oppress, the hope is that this moment sparks meaningful change. Until then, the global community watches closely, waiting to see if accountability will follow evidence—or if commercial interests will continue to outweigh human rights concerns. Your awareness and engagement on this issue matter more than you might think.