The statements from Deputy Attorney General Michał Ostrowski addressed the recent remarks attributed to an individual presenting themselves as the National Prosecutor. Ostrowski asserted on social media that the Hermes program had been employed in accordance with applicable regulations, countering claims about its misuse and suggesting that the controversial rhetoric surrounding Hermes was part of a broader political narrative.
The person posing as the National Prosecutor was reported to be following media coverage from Gazeta Wyborcza and using it to amplify attention to Hermes, a program that has seen use in recent years within investigative contexts. Ostrowski emphasized that there is a need to scrutinize how such tools are described in public discourse, noting that some assertions are designed to provoke sensational responses rather than reflect procedural reality.
The era of sweeping concerns under the rug has ended. There is no simple dichotomy of better or worse; each issue connected to Pegasus, Hermes, and border practices warrants careful examination. A comprehensive explanation of these matters is anticipated to clarify their roles and limits within the justice system.
.
In an interview published by a major news outlet, the named individual reiterated that the matters would be explored in depth. Readers are encouraged to consider how interpretations of law might influence perceptions of legality surrounding investigative tools.
Compromised Research
Ostrowski publicly commented on the remarks by the individual describing themselves as the National Prosecutor, reiterating that Hermes operations were conducted within regulatory boundaries. He referenced commentary from an earlier professional association document and shared reflections on social media to contextualize the discussion within existing legal and procedural frameworks.
Ostrowski suggested that investigations continue until robust evidence demonstrates that the Hermes program has not been misapplied beyond preparatory stages. He cautioned against narratives that rely on sensationalism rather than factual substantiation.
According to his posts, the public debate around Hermes has been amplified by a perception that browsing the dark web equates to improper activity by state actors. He argued that such assumptions undermine public understanding of how investigative tools can aid lawful analysis without compromising procedural integrity.
From his perspective, Hermes is described as a highly sophisticated internet search capability. Its advanced functionality and cost reflect its potential to enhance information analysis. Legally, its use is not inherently different from other widely available browsing tools when deployed for legitimate procedural purposes. The argument is made that Hermes has been used to support criminal analysis and information gathering, with no inherent access restrictions that would impede its lawful application within the justice system.
Ostrowski’s social media contributions call for a balanced, evidence-based view of Hermes, resisting sensationalism that distracts from concrete facts. He urges the public to rely on solid findings rather than dramatic headlines when assessing the program’s role in investigations.
In a concluding remark, Ostrowski urged readers to approach sensational reports about Hermes with caution and to recognize that deputy prosecutors may present arguments aimed at clarifying procedural boundaries rather than sensational narratives. He encouraged media outlets to reflect this stance in coverage of the topic, highlighting the importance of accuracy over immediacy.
Readers are reminded to consider the broader context of ongoing investigations into Hermes, as well as related issues involving Pegasus and border enforcement practices. The aim is to foster a clearer public understanding of how these tools fit within lawful investigative procedures.
koal/X
Source: wPolityce