←back to thread

Microsoft blocks Israel’s use of its tech in mass surveillance of Palestinians

(www.theguardian.com)
873 points helsinkiandrew | 1 comments | 25 Sep 25 15:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
codeulike ◴[25 Sep 25 15:22 UTC] No.45373831[source]▶
“I want to note our appreciation for the reporting of the Guardian,” [Microsoft’s vice-chair and president, Brad Smith] wrote, noting that it had brought to light “information we could not access in light of our customer privacy commitments”. He added: “Our review is ongoing.”

Its interesting that they seem to be saying they dont know the full details of how their customers are using Azure, due to privacy commitments.

replies(8): >>45374001 #>>45374241 #>>45374312 #>>45374319 #>>45374443 #>>45374448 #>>45374554 #>>45375003 #
covercash ◴[25 Sep 25 15:59 UTC] No.45374443[source]▶
Weird, pretty sure employees brought this to their attention a few times already…

https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-azure-gaza-palestine-is...

https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-azure-gaza-israel-prote...

https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-build-israel-gaza-prote...

https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-protest-employees-fired...

replies(3): >>45374564 #>>45374981 #>>45375840 #
cl0ckt0wer ◴[25 Sep 25 16:05 UTC] No.45374564[source]▶
If they act on information their employees report, they are violating their commitments.
replies(2): >>45374712 #>>45376498 #
sc68cal ◴[25 Sep 25 16:14 UTC] No.45374712[source]▶
There have been public reports by major news organizations on the subject of Israel using big tech companies to surveil the West Bank and Gaza, for a decade. This isn't an issue of customer privacy.
replies(1): >>45374817 #
meowface ◴[25 Sep 25 16:21 UTC] No.45374817[source]▶
The difference is that pre-2023 it could at least have some plausible excuse of trying to detect terrorist activity. With Israel's current actions in Gaza, there is no longer any plausible excuse or defense for any security action Israel is conducting towards Palestinians.
replies(2): >>45375031 #>>45375095 #
Aarostotle ◴[25 Sep 25 16:38 UTC] No.45375095[source]▶
Did something happen in 2023 that makes it _less_ relevant for Israel to try to prevent terrorist activity?
replies(2): >>45375237 #>>45376255 #
meowface ◴[25 Sep 25 17:46 UTC] No.45376255[source]▶
Israel has a legitimate reason to want to try to intercept and detect terrorist activity, but given what they've been doing in Gaza for the past year and a half, they simply can't be trusted. They've lost all credibility and benefit of the doubt. So they can't expect other entities to help them do something they say is legitimate, because no one can trust them to do something in a legitimate and ethical way.
replies(2): >>45376896 #>>45377236 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[25 Sep 25 18:29 UTC] No.45376896[source]▶
I think OP’s point is Israel’s legitimate surveillance needs have risen alongside their credibility crashing. This isn’t a simply reduced problem unless one has a horse in the race.
replies(1): >>45377266 #
meowface ◴[25 Sep 25 18:57 UTC] No.45377266[source]▶
I understand that, and I am sympathetic to those needs to some degree. They do have increased legitimate surveillance needs. But they've lost all of their good will. Partnering with them is too morally and PR-ily hazardous.

I am not saying Israel is nearly as bad as Nazi Germany, but I think this argument is overall kind of pointless because one could easily have said that Nazi Germany had greatly increased legitimate surveillance needs after they invaded Poland.

replies(2): >>45377516 #>>45379489 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[25 Sep 25 19:13 UTC] No.45377516{4}[source]▶
> one could easily have said that Nazi Germany had greatly increased legitimate surveillance needs after they invaded Poland

This is an interesting comparison—thank you.

That said, did the Poles launch cross-border attacks on German civilians? The closest I can come up with is Bloody Sunday [1], which was an attack on ethnically German civilians, but not a cross-border incursion. (Granted, we can only observe this ex post facto, so your argument still stands.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)

replies(3): >>45377853 #>>45378029 #>>45381320 #
hashim ◴[25 Sep 25 19:48 UTC] No.45378029[source]▶
Why would being cross-border matter when the entire land was previously Palestinian land before being handed over by colonial powers and then "won" in subsequent "wars" (read: massacres) on the barely-armed villagers living there? The Viet Cong, South Africa's ANC, the Suffragettes and civil rights movements all used violence for their causes. Hamas was established in 1984, by the generation that had grown up with the occupation in 1948. If your country was occupied and members of your family killed, would you be as careful to keep your resistance peaceful?
replies(3): >>45378565 #>>45379307 #>>45380219 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[25 Sep 25 20:28 UTC] No.45378565{6}[source]▶
> Why would being cross-border matter when the entire land was previously Palestinian

That's how borders work. (Anything else is, by definition, a border dispute.) If the Armia Krajowa had bulldozed into Lithuania on the logic that they lost it due to foreign meddling, they would have tarnished their record. (Despite the claim being true.)

> Viet Cong, South Africa's ANC, the Suffragettes and civil rights movements all used violence for their causes

On their own turf. And as for the former, against military targets--nobody serious in the Viet Cong or USSR was plotting Al Qaeda-style attacks on the American homeland.

October 7th was a terrorist attack. It was plotted like a military operation. But so was 9/11.

> would you be as careful to keep your resistance peaceful?

Not particularly. But I'd want to be fighting an actual resistance. 7 October attack was a strategic failure. The only reason it might end in a draw is because Netanyahu surrounded himself with maniacs. Even then, permanent damage has been done to the viability of a sovereign Palestine.

(There is also a massive difference between something being understandable and something being justified.)

replies(1): >>45379404 #
1. hashim ◴[25 Sep 25 21:32 UTC] No.45379404{7}[source]▶
So the problem is that you don't believe Palestinians are on their "own turf", because Israel "legally" won it from the villagers there in 1948 after having the British install them to it. Got it. Once again, the Palestinian homeland is exactly where the kibbutz (which is a military camp and outpost) was, mere miles from Gaza, and all of the people involved were actively standing members of the IDF (i.e. the occupying army akin to the Americans in Vietnam). You keep calling it a terrorist attack while appearing completely clueless that it's a largely meaningless political term. We considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist while he was locked up for 30 years, and for the UK at least he was only removed from that list in 2013.
replies(1): >>45383316 #