The Additional District Judge of the Rohini court on November 24 issued a show cause notice to eight people associated with the UK wire agency, Reuters, including journalists and a legal head, ordering them to appear before the court on Thursday to explain why an earlier order restraining them from publishing articles deemed defamatory was violated.
According to court summon notice the journalists summoned include: Raphael Satter, Zeba Siddiqui, Christopher Bing, Ryan McNeil, Corinne Perkins, John Emerson and Marla Dickerson. Summons were also delivered to Reuters’ Chief Legal Officer, Thomas Kim, and Thomson Reuters itself.
Earlier on November 16, court had issued summons against Raphael Satter, Zeba Siddiqui and Christopher Bing. Now, fresh summons had been issues against nine people. The judge had issued the restraining order on December 1, 2022, after a complaint filed by the lawyers of Appin Association of Training Center that accused the journalists of a smear campaign against them.
Despite the court order, Satter, along with Zeba Siddiqui and Christopher Bing, published an article on November 17, making several allegations of hacking against the plaintiff without substantive, irrefutable evidence, as claimed by their lawyers. As per company records, the training company was founded in 2004 and closed its operations in 2013.
When contacted, the lawyers for the plaintiff contended that the Reuters article, which alleges Appin’s involvement in multiple hacking incidents, highlights a report by Norman Shark, titled - “Operation Hangover” - published in 2013. The report, at best, mentions only the likelihood of Appin’s involvement. They alleged that the journalists were selective in their approach, considering only the Norman Shark report and ignoring two related reports by Trend Micro and Blackberry in 2019, which determined that it was Phronesis, a Gurugram -based cyber intelligence firm that behind the cyber attacks.
They added that the Reuters article is based on covert interviews with ex-students of the training institute, who reported that coercive tactics were used by the reporters to elicit information. One-sided conclusions by cyber security experts were also used to give an impression of credence to the story, the lawyers added.
“We discovered that the reporters registered themselves as recruiters on Naukri.com, an Indian job portal, to pursue some of our former students and pose questions related to Appin. These calls were made at odd hours and jobs were offered in exchange for information. After we received complaints of harassment form some students, our lawyers raised the matter with Christopher Lee, Reuters’ legal head, but no action was taken,” said Vinay Pandey, president of Appin Association of Training Centers.
“The Reuters article is full of misrepresentations. Appin was founded by Rajat Khare, Tarun Wig and some other school friends. Anuj Khare’s involvement came at a much later date. It’s puzzling how a celebrated reporter can get the facts so wrong. It’s important to understand that Appin was a thriving training business, but after Rajat Khare’s resignation in 2013, we faced challenges going forward. We took matters in our own hands and formed an informal association to help and manage pan-India training centres,” he clarified.
On allegations related to documents in the article, Pandey pointed out that the docs were created for training purposes only. “For example, one specific presentation on blackberry hacking was a corporate training document designed to train corporates planning to switch to blackberry. An article by a national daily in 2008 had even highlighted how security experts believed the technology to intercept emails sent from a BlackBerry is available with many developed countries Blackberry and non-state actors. But it was taken out of context,” Pandey added.
Regarding Peter Hargitay’s testimony, he said he’s a spin doctor implicated in the Bhopal Gas tragedy as well as in a 1997 case in a Florida court. The lawyers now believe several documents that Reuters possess may be either incorrect or not within context.
On the matter of invoices, Pandey said it was either a website security audit or a web server rental invoice aimed at providing work experience. “Emails and chats most probably belong to a Retd senior military official who runs a detective agency selling surveillance, and a cyber security actor Sumit Gupta,” he said in his defence. Documents investigated and witnesses spoken with indicate the alleged involvement of Gupta in the identity theft of brand Appin and its senior management.
