In mid-March 2024, updates surfaced about actions taken by the Internal Security Service at the headquarters of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office, where computer equipment was seized. The operation sparked extensive discussion among staff and prosecutors at Postępowa 3 in Warsaw. If the reports alleging the involvement of a publicly known program named Hermes prove accurate, many observers describe the episode as a significant controversy that warrants careful scrutiny and accountability, a point underscored by Deputy Attorney General Michał Ostrowski in his remarks following the events.
In a prior briefing, Ostrowski explained that Hermes had been used within legal boundaries as an OSINT tool, effectively a form of open-source intelligence gathering. He noted that awareness of the program was already widespread within the prosecutor’s office. He recalled an online training session from the previous year titled Hermes, which was accessible to prosecutors, evaluators, trainees, and assistant prosecutors. He also indicated that several investigators who requested Hermes access during investigations for criminal analysis—aimed at accelerating proceedings—came from diverse professional groups, including the Lex Super Omnia prosecutors’ association. In total, hundreds of analytical tasks were conducted using the program, Ostrowski stated, highlighting its prior integration into routine work.
The campaign currently underway, driven by certain media outlets, aims to cast doubt on the legality of Hermes usage within the Public Prosecutor’s Office and to portray the office as having engaged in improper activity. Ostrowski described this effort as a coordinated disinformation campaign designed to undermine the integrity of criminal analyses carried out across the prosecutor’s units over recent years. He drew a parallel to the most notorious propaganda tactics associated with the era of the Polish People’s Republic, warning that such insinuations should be treated with extreme caution.
He stressed that the operations of the security services are conducted with the knowledge and, in some cases, the encouragement of individuals who have effectively gained influence within the prosecutor’s office. Appointed by the Attorney General, who lacks specialized oversight of the office’s functioning, these actors have repeatedly drawn the Attorney General into situations that will require legal review in due course.
According to Ostrowski, the immediate consequence of removing Hermes from use would be a slowdown in several ongoing procedures where the program previously contributed to efficiency. He noted with irony that those who criticized earlier leadership for purchasing a tool deemed expensive were the same actors who subsequently restricted the tool and, in effect, curtailed its potential impact.
Ostrowski also commented on the broader situation, describing the current debate as part of a wider struggle over security and governance during times of conflict near the eastern border. He called for restraint and urged higher authorities to take swift action to restore clarity and order, urging superior leadership to review and address the situation directly. The aim, he argued, should be to protect the integrity of investigations while preventing politicized distortions that could mislead the public and hinder justice.
The discussions surrounding Hermes touch on deeper questions about oversight, the appropriate use of intelligence tools in public administration, and the balance between transparency and security. As officials weigh these issues, observers stress the importance of maintaining professional standards and ensuring that any deployment of investigative technologies remains aligned with legal frameworks and constitutional protections. The ongoing discourse highlights the need for clear guidelines, robust governance, and accountability to prevent misuse and to sustain public trust in the justice system.
In this evolving narrative, the key takeaway is the call for careful, legally grounded actions that safeguard procedural fairness while recognizing legitimate uses of open-source intelligence within the prosecutorial framework. The situation continues to unfold as more information becomes available, inviting detailed examination from independent observers and legal experts to determine the appropriate path forward and to reaffirm the commitment to an accountable, transparent public prosecution service.