Immigration and Customs Enforcement has renewed a contract with Paragon, a surveillance company with a history that raises serious concerns. Paragon was founded in Israel in 2019 and has been tied to spyware that targeted activists and journalists in Europe. Italy canceled its contract after reports of hacking. Meta flagged similar abuses in January. Now, Paragon has been acquired by a U.S. private equity firm and merged with Virginia-based Red Lattice, giving the company a new home but not a new reputation. The decision to work with Paragon reflects the difficult reality of law enforcement in the modern age. Agencies like ICE are under pressure to protect people from violent actors and costly incidents. Surveillance tools offer a way to track threats that would otherwise be invisible. On paper, the case for advanced technology is obvious. The problem is that the same tools can be misused. The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab has documented instances of spyware being deployed against individuals who were not criminals but critics. Once that line is crossed, trust erodes quickly. It is one thing to monitor known threats. It is another to eavesdrop on journalists and activists. This is not just an international issue. Surveillance technology is already being used in the United States. We are living in a new era where digital privacy and civil liberties collide with state power. Once those collisions occur, transparency becomes critical. Yet transparency is exactly what is most difficult to achieve in the world of classified contracts and secret programs. That creates a cycle of mistrust. Officials argue they need the tools. Civil society argues that the tools are abused. The public is left with fragments of information. A contract renewal here. A report of misuse there. Each new revelation fuels suspicion, but rarely delivers clarity. I find this hard to navigate. On one side, it is clear that agencies need to protect people. On the other, the history of surveillance shows how often power is abused. Once you combine ICE, which already divides public opinion, with a spyware firm accused of targeting reporters, the conversation becomes less about solutions and more about division. Should the public’s trust hinge on transparency? Or has the damage already been done? For many, the answer is that trust is gone. Every contract renewal looks like another step toward unchecked surveillance. For others, the tools are necessary to keep the country safe, and criticism misses the realities of law enforcement. Neither side feels fully convincing because the truth is buried beneath secrecy. Maybe things will need to get worse before they get better. Scandals may force reforms that are impossible today. Public pressure may create oversight mechanisms that currently do not exist. Until then, the debate will remain stuck between competing narratives that cannot be reconciled. What is clear is that surveillance technology is only going to grow more advanced. The tools will not go away. The question is whether governments can use them responsibly and whether citizens will ever feel comfortable with that balance. Right now, the answer looks uncertain at best. Sources Bloomberg, Ryan Gallagher (September 2025) Citizen Lab, University of Toronto (March 2025 report on spyware misuse) Meta, WhatsApp security bulletin (January 2025)