Politician who investigated spyware abuses had his phone hacked with Pegasus spyware 54%

By Zack Whittaker47%

7/3/2026, 5:05:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Biased Writer Voice, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.3% saturation with 254 hits. Analysis detected 1,986 faulty-reasoning hits from 787 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.3% and a BS Rank of 54% (9,600 of 20,472 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.10% of the article peer group.

Security researchers have confirmed that a European politician had his phone hacked with the Pegasus spyware while serving on an investigatory committee probing abuses of the notorious surveillance tool. 
This has reigniting fresh controversy over governments abusing spyware to collect information about their critics. 
The researchers at the University of Toronto’s digital rights unit The Citizen Lab say the confirmed phone hacking of Greek journalist and former politician Stelios Kouloglou during 2022 and 2023 marks the first time that a member of the European Parliament’s PEGA committee, tasked with investigating phone spyware attacks by European governments, has been publicly identified as a victim of spyware. 
Kouloglou told TechCrunch in a phone call that the deliberate compromise of his phone was “reckless. 
” One serving European lawmaker described the hacking of Kouloglou’s phone as a “direct attack on the rule of law,” and called on the European Commission to take concrete action by imposing strict limits on the use of spyware across the 27 member-state bloc. 
While spyware attacks on lawmakers are rare, the timing and targeting of a committee investigator by way of the very spyware under his investigation suggests an intense focus on the committee’s inner workings ahead of a widely anticipated report detailing its findings. 
The hacks open fresh questions about how governments use spyware ostensibly needed for identifying serious crime, but then caught spying on the communications of journalists, lawmakers, and critics. 
Citizen Lab’s researchers did not attribute the phone hacking to a specific country, but said that the government customer used the same Pegasus-loaded email address that was used in a previous campaign that hacked into the phones of journalists across Europe. 
The customer’s identity is not known, but the reuse of the same attacking email address implies that the customer had NSO Group’s authorization to use its Pegasus spyware to snoop on phones across multiple countries in Europe. 
A spokesperson for the European Commission did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment. 
NSO Group also did not respond to a request for comment about the Citizen Lab report prior to publication. 
In its report out Friday, Citizen Lab said Kouloglou was hacked in October 2022 and at least twice during March 2023 using an exploit that compromised a security vulnerability in Apple’s iPhone software. 
This vulnerability had been patched but the fix was not yet installed on Kouloglou’s phone. 
The exploit was a “zero-click” bug, meaning the spyware broke in and stole his data without needing any interaction on his part. 
The bug abused a previously discovered flaw in Apple’s smart home software used in iPhones. 
It allowed the spyware to grab private data from Kouloglou’s phone without his knowledge, such as his text messages and other correspondence, location data, and photos. 
The timing of the October 2022 hack coincides with intense discussions over email and text message throughout October and November 2022, ahead of the delivery of a first draft describing spyware abuses focusing in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Poland, and Spain. 
The hack also lines up at the exact time that Kouloglou was in the hospital at the time for a pre-scheduled surgery, which may have allowed the spyware operators to listen in to ambient audio discussing his healthcare or other conversations he had with visitors at the time. 
Months later on March 6 and 7, Citizen Lab said Kouloglou’s phone was hacked again by the same Pegasus operator while Kouloglou traveled from Athens to Brussels, during a period of committee hearings and months prior to the committee finalizing and adopting their written draft report. 
In a call, Kouloglou told TechCrunch that he didn’t know why he was specifically targeted but that he believes it was due to his work on the European Parliament’s committee investigating Pegasus abuses. 
He described anger when he learned that his phone had been hacked. 
“You realize that all of your personal data [was taken]  not all the professional exchanges or messages with ministers  but also the very private things, like the happy moments and the sad moments,” he told TechCrunch. 
Kouloglou said he plans to sue NSO Group, the Israeli-headquartered spyware maker. 
NSO remains largely banned from use in the United States following a Biden-era executive order that outlawed the government’s use of spyware that could violate people’s human rights. 
Last year, the spyware maker confirmed an unnamed American investment group funneled tens of millions of dollars into the company, likely as part of an effort to rehabilitate NSO’s beleaguered brand associated with enabling human rights abuses. 
Kouloglou said he was going public with his story “for democracy, human rights, and the fight against corruption. 
” 
“Corruption concerns everybody,” he said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Zack Whittaker: 5.3%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.3%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Zack Whittaker: 4.1%TechCrunch: 3.4%Availability Heuristic10.5%This article: 5.2%Zack Whittaker: 1.3%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.2%This article: 5.3%Zack Whittaker: 0.9%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias5.3%This article: 9.4%Zack Whittaker: 1.0%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias9.4%This article: 7.1%Zack Whittaker: 4.1%TechCrunch: 4.6%Framing Effect7.1%This article: 4.8%Zack Whittaker: 1.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion4.8%This article: 3.6%Zack Whittaker: 1.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 5.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Zack Whittaker: 1.2%TechCrunch: 1.2%Pessimism Bias10.8%This article: 32.3%Zack Whittaker: 13.2%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias32.3%This article: 6.1%Zack Whittaker: 1.8%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 1.5%TechCrunch: 3.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Zack Whittaker: 1.5%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.0%Zack Whittaker: 2.3%TechCrunch: 4.2%Appeal to Authority15.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 5.3%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.6%Slippery Slope5.3%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.5%Zack Whittaker: 6.5%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization16.5%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.1%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 1.2%Bandwagon0.1%This article: 11.9%Zack Whittaker: 5.1%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion11.9%This article: 7.8%Zack Whittaker: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question7.8%This article: 27.1%Zack Whittaker: 5.2%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)27.1%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.2%Zack Whittaker: 1.1%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof4.2%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.3%Zack Whittaker: 0.8%TechCrunch: 2.3%Anecdotal3.3%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.6%Zack Whittaker: 1.6%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.6%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.4%Zack Whittaker: 2.1%TechCrunch: 1.9%Unattributed Quote15.4%This article: 1.5%Zack Whittaker: 1.9%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 24.5%Zack Whittaker: 3.4%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice24.5%This article: 7.9%Zack Whittaker: 2.4%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination7.9%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Whittaker: 3.7%TechCrunch: 4.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

787 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech669writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 61 words • 100.0% coverageStelios Kouloglou • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageStelios Kouloglou • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageStelios Kouloglou • 38 words • 0.0% coverageStelios Kouloglou • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageStelios Kouloglou • 18 words • 100.0% coverageStelios Kouloglou • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Stelios Kouloglou

90%flagged-word coverage
118 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-28.8 ptsWriter: 28.8%Stelios Kouloglou: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.1 ptsWriter: 15.7%Stelios Kouloglou: 13.6%13.6%Indoctrination+8.7 ptsWriter: 6.6%Stelios Kouloglou: 15.3%15.3%Quote-first Misdirection-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Stelios Kouloglou: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.