Full Analysis Summary
Cellebrite extractions in Jordan
Researchers at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab found with high confidence that Jordanian security authorities used Cellebrite phone-forensic tools to extract data from the phones of activists detained or interrogated for speech critical of Israel's campaign in Gaza.
Citizen Lab's forensic analysis covered four seized devices between January 2024 and June 2025, and the organization reports that all showed evidence of forensic extraction by Cellebrite.
Reports say the cases involved political activists, a student organiser and a human-rights defender, and that victims' names were withheld for fear of reprisals.
The finding has been reported across outlets, which emphasize both the forensic evidence and the political context of the seizures.
Coverage Differences
Scope/Counting difference
The sources differ on how many victims or devices they describe: The Guardian and Citizen Lab emphasise forensic analysis of four devices and withhold names, while The Record explicitly reports 'at least seven' activists when combining analysed devices and court records.
Tone/narrative emphasis
The Guardian foregrounds the political criticism (activists critical of Israel and supportive of Gaza) and legal concerns, The Record frames the story with technical and case-count details including court records, and Citizen Lab presents forensic methodology and confidence levels as the primary evidence.
Mobile data extraction methods
Sources describe the tools used in detail, highlighting Cellebrite's ability to extract a wide range of data from devices.
Extracted data can include photos, videos, chats, files, saved passwords, location and Wi-Fi history, web and app usage, social media accounts, and sometimes deleted data.
Investigators report indicators of compromise tied to the company's products.
Multiple accounts document coercive unlocking techniques, such as officers allegedly using Apple Face ID to unlock a student's phone by holding it to their face.
Activists were reportedly forced to unlock phones with Face ID or passcodes while detained.
Reporting emphasizes both the technical reach of these tools and the methods used to gain access to phones.
Coverage Differences
Technical description emphasis
The Guardian lists the types of data Cellebrite can pull in a descriptive way, The Record stresses the company’s use of 'brute‑force and exploit‑based methods' in addition to listing data types, while Citizen Lab focuses on forensic indicators and offline capabilities that allow continued use of core features.
Method of access detail
All three sources report forced unlocking; The Guardian provides a specific example of Apple Face ID being used against a student’s face, The Record echoes forced unlocking more generally and ties extractions to detention/interrogation contexts, and Citizen Lab supplies forensic evidence linking extractions to Cellebrite.
Coverage of Cellebrite use
The reporting contrasts how rights, corporate claims and legal rules are portrayed.
Citizen Lab and The Guardian frame the Jordanian use as likely violations of international obligations.
The Guardian explicitly says the use 'likely violated Jordan's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.'
Citizen Lab situates the Jordan case within a longer pattern and highlights the company's own past acknowledgement, in a 2021 SEC filing, that its products can be used to violate human rights.
By contrast, The Record notes that Cellebrite told journalists it 'vets customers and requires legal authority' but would not comment on specifics, presenting the company's response alongside the forensic findings.
Coverage Differences
Legal/rights framing vs company response
The Guardian frames the extractions as likely violations of Jordan’s ICCPR obligations, Citizen Lab stresses historical patterns and company admissions about human‑rights risks, while The Record reports the company's stated vetting process without endorsing a legal finding.
Abuses linked to Cellebrite
The Jordan findings are presented in the context of broader, documented abuses linked to Cellebrite tools across many countries.
Citizen Lab and other rights groups list prior cases where the company’s tools were tied to data extractions and abuses, including journalists and dissidents in Myanmar, Serbia, Russia, Indonesia, Botswana, and other states, and Amnesty International’s Security Lab has recovered forensic traces of misuse.
The Record likewise notes that other organizations have reported similar abuses worldwide, while The Guardian focuses on the specific Jordanian incidents and their immediate legal and human-rights implications.
Coverage Differences
Context breadth
Citizen Lab supplies the broadest international context, listing many countries and specific prior incidents; The Record notes similar global reports and alleges awareness of dozens more Jordanian cases; The Guardian stays concentrated on the Jordan findings and examples from its own analysed cases.