Are you investing in high-risk surveillance technologies?

Surveillance technologies such as spyware, digital forensics tools, cell site simulators (CSS), and deep packet inspection (DPI) systems are often marketed as “must-have” tools to combat crime or terrorism. These technologies sit at the intersection of security, innovation, and rising government demand, making them appear to be attractive investment opportunities.

Yet for investors, this sector carries severe, under-recognised risks.

• These high-risk technologies carry unquantifiable legal and reputational liabilities that can rapidly destroy value. Surveillance tools marketed for “lawful interception” are increasingly linked to human rights abuses, creating exposure to sanctions, litigation, export restrictions, criminal investigations, and global media scrutiny. Because the underlying risks stem from how the products enable harm, not just who the client is, investors cannot reliably model the downside.
• Business models built on opaque contracts lack transparency and defensibility. Investors that have limited visibility into who the end-users are, how products are being deployed, or whether the activity complies with international human rights standards are ultimately investing in black boxes. Risk may be acceptable, but uncertainty without information is not suitable for securing financial returns or for democratic societies.
• Weak oversight and accountability structures create systemic risk that investors will be expected to absorb. Firms routinely claim they “only sell to democracies,” “comply with local laws,” or “lack access to user data,” yet documented evidence shows these assurances do not prevent or mitigate harm. These claims are reputational cover, not risk controls.

Crucially, many of the harms enabled by these technologies are widespread, severe, and impossible to remediate, significantly increasing long-term investor exposure.

How can this guide help investors protect their portfolios?

This guide provides actionable tools to move from principles to portfolio protection:

• Identify exposure: Better determine if portfolio companies are developing or distributing high-risk surveillance technologies;
• Assess material risks: Use case studies to evaluate how human rights risk is also linked to legal, compliance, operational and financially significant reputational risk;
• Engage with companies with more targeted due diligence: Ask decision-useful questions to uncover hidden risks before deploying capital;
• Benchmark against best practices: Compare current company practice to examples of best practice behaviour needed to more effectively mitigate human rights risk.

Developed in partnership with AWO Agency, SMEX and the BHRC, this guide equips investors to make informed, risk-aware decisions in a complex, often opaque and high-stakes ecosystem.

Are you looking for more support to identify companies commercialising these technologies? 

Actors within the surveillance technology ecosystem are constantly changing. Contact us to learn more about how to effectively leverage the BHRC database to support your due diligence processes: [email protected]

The BHRC contacted the companies mentioned in this report to provide the opportunity to comment, wherever contact information was available. No public contact information was found for the Intellexa Consortium nor Saito Tech (formerly Candiru). Of the 13 companies we contacted, four responded. None of the companies answered all of the due diligence questions listed. Read their replies here.