Many writers here see this as unfairly singling out Serbia. I find it helpful to see this as a case study. Instead of seeing as only a portrait of one country

Many writers here see this as unfairly singling out Serbia. I find it helpful to see this as a case study. Instead of seeing as only a portrait of one country ("and my country is different"), consider it as an illustration ("my country could feel like that, too"). Note that the report goes well beyond the title. 1. Norway was the source of the Cellebrite technology?! > Additionally, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which donated the Cellebrite UFED technology, and the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which managed procurement for the Norwegian government’s grant to Serbia’s Ministry of Interior, failed to conduct an adequate due diligence process to assess and mitigate for the potential risks of this technology to human rights and to provide safeguards against its abuse 2. The "chilling effect" (page 10) notes apply to anyone in a position resisting the government, in any country. 3. The details section is more specific about everything, and none of the facts are good. I think the details here go beyond "surveillance is happening everywhere", so I think it's wrong to dismiss this as some kind of fluff or hit piece. Even if other places are also bad, see the truth in this as well.