Welcome to the CAVEAT Weekly Newsletter, where we break down some of the major developments and happenings occurring worldwide when discussing cybersecurity, privacy, digital surveillance, and technology policy.
At 1,500 words, this briefing is about a 7-minute read.
At a Glance.
- Italy and Israeli spyware firm Paragon split.
- Getty argues for copyright cases in the UK.
Italy and Paragon have ended their relationship.
The news.
On Monday, the Italian government announced it had terminated its contracts with Israeli spyware company Paragon. This development occurred following reports that Paragon’s surveillance technology was allegedly used to target government critics, such as journalists and activists.
This development was made public after the Italian oversight committee COPASIR, released a report confirming the end of the relationship. While it is unclear when this relationship officially ended, both the Italian government and Paragon have confirmed the termination. However, the two sides have disputed over why this relationship was terminated.
Opposition politicians have continued to call on the government to clarify this matter and to conduct a greater investigation.
The knowledge.
This matter dates back to an incident that occurred in January 2025, where an official from WhatsApp claimed that Paragon’s spyware had targeted its users in over two dozen countries. In this allegation, the official also detailed that the company had sent Paragon a cease-and-desist letter stating that the company “will continue to protect people’s ability to communicate privately.”
In February, after Paragon’s spyware hacking attempts became public, the Italian government commented on the situation stating that the spyware had targeted seven Italian users. However, the government denied any involvement in the activities and directed the National Cybersecurity Agency to investigate.
However, Paragon has cast some doubts on the Italian government’s claims. Paragon stated that they had stopped providing spyware to the Italian government after the incident became public. Furthermore, Paragon also stated that the government declined an offer to jointly investigate the incident to determine the validity and scope of the alleged spying.
Outside of these conflicting narratives, the COPASIR report did provide greater details on the relationship between Paragon and the Italian government. The report detailed that Italy's agencies used Paragon’s spyware in both 2023 and 2024 in a very limited number of cases and with the permission of a prosecutor. COPASIR continued emphasizing that the spyware was used to search for fugitives, counter illegal immigration, investigate terrorism and organized crime, and other similar activities.
The impact.
While this specific incident is unlikely to impact many people, it is representative of a growing problem. Spyware, and more importantly government-sanctioned spyware, is becoming a more commonplace practice. Though some have argued that spyware can be used to bolster national security efforts, there have been numerous incidents where the technology has been used to target rival politicians, journalists, activists, and others. Furthermore, while governments can use spyware for security purposes, the technology can also be used by hostile actors oftentimes resulting in identity theft, privacy breaches, and financial loss.
Given how commonplace spyware is becoming, people should take time to understand what spyware is, what its associated risks are, and how they can better protect themselves from the technology.
Getty involved in a landmark UK copyright case.
The news.
On Monday, Getty Images’ copyright lawsuit against Stability AI began in the United Kingdom’s (UK) High Court. This case involves Getty Images accusing Stability AI of using its images to train its Stable Diffusion systems, which generate images from text inputs. In its lawsuit, Getty Images claims that Stability unlawfully scraped millions of images from its sites and then used them to train and develop its artificial intelligence (AI) image generation system.
Before the trial began on Monday, a spokesperson for Stability AI stated that the matter was connected to “the wider dispute… about technological innovation and freedom of ideas.” The spokesperson continued:
“Artists using our tools are producing works built upon collective human knowledge, which is at its core of fair use and freedom of expression.”
Getty’s lawyers pushed back on these claims in court stating that this was “not a battle between creatives and technology, where a win for Getty Images means the end of AI.” Getty’s lawyer Linday Lane continued by stating:
“The two industries can exist in synergistic harmony because copyright works and database rights are critical to the advancement and success of AI … the problem is when AI companies such as Stability want to use those works without payment.”
Getty Images is also bringing a parallel lawsuit against Stability AI in the United States (US).
The knowledge.
While this case has just begun, this matter is an intensely debated and significant issue. Alongside this lawsuit, there have been numerous other lawsuits brought against AI companies using copyrighted material to train their AI systems. Other notable cases include the following:
- Dow Jones & Company, Inc v Perplexity AI, Inc: Alleges that Perplexity AI used copyrighted content in its retrieval-augmented generation solution.
- Concord Music Group, Inc v Anthropic PBC: Plaintiffs allege that Anthropic violated copyright law by using copyrighted lyrics to train the Claude AI model.
- Thomson Reuters v Ross: Plaintiffs allege that Ross unlawfully copied Reuter’s legal research platform to train its AI models.
- Kadrey v Meta: Plaintiffs allege that Meta unauthorizedly copied Kadrey’s books to train its models.
While these cases represent just a small portion of the ongoing litigation efforts involving AI and copyright law, each case carries potentially wide-reaching implications for both AI developers and content creators alike. If courts overwhelmingly favor creators, developers could face substantial licensing costs, which in turn could impact how AI products are built, priced, and delivered to consumers. Comparatively, for courts that favor developers, AI companies will be more incentivized to invest in these areas for development to avoid less favorable jurisdictions and harsher rulings.
Rebecca Newman, a lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, commented on the significance of these battles. Newman explained:
“Legally, we’re in uncharted territory. This case will be pivotal in setting the boundaries of the monopoly granted by UK copyright in the age of AI.”
Cerys Wyn Davis echoed the significance of this case noting how the High Court’s ruling “could have a major bearing on market practice and the UK’s attractiveness as a jurisdiction for AI development.”
The impact.
Though it will take some time for this case to be resolved and an appeal could be filed afterward, the case will have significant ramifications for both AI developers and content creators. As this case and many other similar ones play out over the coming months and years, they will dictate the rights that creators have, whether or not they are entitled to financial compensation for AI scraping and other significant implications.
As these cases continue to progress, people who would be impacted by these rulings should monitor these cases both at a local, national, and potentially international level. By understanding the implications of these cases and the remediation solutions courts may be considering, people and organizations can better understand their rights and minimize impacts.
Highlighting key conversations.
In this week’s Caveat Podcast, our team held our monthly Policy Deep Dive. In this episode, our team revisits our first Policy Deep Dive conversation surrounding antitrust policy. During the first conversation, there was still a significant amount of speculation surrounding how the incoming Trump administration would handle ongoing antitrust efforts. However, since taking power, President Trump’s antitrust agenda has become exceptionally clear as he is currently presiding over one of the most aggressive antitrust administrations in decades. Currently, Trump’s administration is requesting courts break up many of the largest big tech companies in America.
Like what you read, and curious about the conversation? Head over to the Caveat Podcast for the full scoop and additional compelling insights. Our Caveat Podcast is a weekly show where we discuss topics related to surveillance, digital privacy, cybersecurity law, and policy. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to caveat@thecyberwire.com. Hope to hear from you.
Other noteworthy stories.
OpenAI appealing copyright case.
What: OpenAI aims to appeal a copyright case brought by the New York Times.
Why: On Friday, OpenAI announced the company’s intent to appeal a copyright case. This case was ruled on last month after a court ruled that OpenAI had to preserve and segregate all output log data. With this appeal, OpenAI argues that the preservation order would create a conflict with the privacy commitments they made with users.
With this appeal, OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman stated that “we will fight any demand that compromises our users’ privacy; this is a core principle.” Altman continued stating that “we think this was an inappropriate request that sets a bad precedent.”
Amazon to invest $20 billion in Pennsylvania cloud infrastructure.
What: Amazon announces significant investment package in Pennsylvania.
Why: On Monday, Amazon announced its plans to expand data center infrastructure in Pennsylvania. According to Amazon, this investment will create 1,250 new high-skilled jobs and support thousands more. The first communities identified as sites for future campuses include Salem and Falls Township. There is currently no timeframe for this investment.
Alongside this investment, Amazon has also made investment deals providing $10 billion to North Carolina and $5 billion to Taiwan.